[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7709-H7751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 198 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2076.

                              {time}  1241


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2076) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Gunderson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gunderson). When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, July 25, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has been disposed of and title I was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, domestic violence is not just a private 
matter anymore; these private dramas are spilling out into public 
places, endangering family members and strangers. In Colorado alone, 
the following incidents have happened:
  May 3, 1995: A teenage boy entered a Denver grocery store, pulled a 
gun on his former girlfriend, whom he had been stalking, and her 
friend. Police shot and killed him, only to find out it was a fake gun.
  April 28, 1995: A man walked into a Denver grocery store, where he 
shot and killed his wife, the store director, and a sheriff's deputy 
who arrived on the scene. He then left the store, as customers crouched 
in the aisles and shielded their children. He entered the parking lot, 
spraying it with bullets as people ran for cover. He hit a pregnant 
woman in the leg; she lived. He apparently had made several threats 
that he was going to kill his wife. A few days earlier, she had gotten 
a restraining order against him, but it hadn't been served yet because 
there was some missing information and the court clerk couldn't reach 
her. She had also just filed for divorce and had received temporary 
custody of their son.
  April 1994: A Boulder police officer was shot and killed while 
responding to a domestic dispute. The male suspect shot and killed 
himself at the scene.
  April 1994: In Aurora, a man allegedly shot and killed his ex-
girlfriend and her 2\1/2\-year-old son and wounded his twin brother.
  July 1993: An Aurora man threatened with divorce shot his wife, 
crippling her, and killed her sister.
  January 1988: A man shot and killed his wife outside a divorce 
courtroom in Littleton. He also wounded the man he thought was her 
lover.
  January 1986: An Aurora police officer shot and wounded his wife's 
divorce lawyer.
  My colleagues, I am very sorry we did not fully fund the Violence 
Against Women Act. I'm also very sorry we had to fight so hard for the 
money we got. It is clear that if the Congresswomen hadn't been 
constantly monitoring this--the amount would be zero. That is 
incredible when the act passed last year 421 to 0. What a difference a 
year makes. So there is some funding thanks to the hard work of Nita 
Lowey, but we are still $50 million short. Women still must beg for 
every dollar.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, a vote to restore some of the funds to the 
Violence Against Women Act is a vote to fulfill only a part of the 
promise Congress made to help victims of domestic violence. This 
promise was made to make America and the home a safer place for women.
  Last August, the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a 
promise to finally treat domestic violence like the crime that it is, 
to improve law enforcement, to make the streets safer for women, and to 
vigorously prosecute perpetrators. We promised more counseling and more 
shelters to provide a safe haven for abused women. Now this Congress 
threatens to backtrack on our promise and abandon these promises to 
combat domestic violence.
  Under the amendment, the Violence Against Women Act receives only a 
fraction of the promised authorization of $175 million to fund justice 
grants to combat violence against women. And while I appreciate the 
efforts of the committee to add $50 million to the bill for the 
program, the shortfall is still severe and I fear may be interpreted as 
a message to battered women that there are few resources for them, only 
empty promises.
  A shelter in San Pedro, CA, in my district, desperately needs the 
money authorized in the Violence Against Women Act to implement its 
programs to combat domestic violence. Two women whom Rainbow Services 
had been helping were killed in the last 6 months--women whose lives 
could have been saved had they been able to stay at the shelter longer. 
These women came forward and tried to do the right thing, but the 
resources were not there to keep them away from their abusers long 
enough. The grants in the Violence Against Women Act money translate 
into saving human lives.
  Rainbow Services has waiting lists for counseling, beds, and all of 
its other services. The number of women who come seeking help has 
doubled in the last 3 months since a domestic violence hotline was 
established in May. The increased funds from California's grant only 
constitutes half of what they need for their emergency response 
program, a program operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They just 
received a grant for a new shelter--the first shelter for battered 
elderly women in the area--and the Violence Against Women Act grants 
are critical to its operation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment to 
restore some funding for the Violence Against Women Act. It is critical 
that we keep our promise to help victims of domestic violence--they 
cannot wait any longer.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment to increase funding for the Justice Department's violence 
against women programs.
  Just 1 year ago, the Violence Against Women Act was passed in the 
House with overwhelming bipartisan support. Yet today, the funding 
allocation for these programs has 

[[Page H7710]]
been reduced so drastically that it would cripple or eradicate many of 
the programs so recently created to address the needs of poor and 
abused women.
  Programs covered under this funding include training for law 
enforcement and judiciary officials on violence issues and programs to 
address the serious problems of stalking and campus sexual assault 
against women.
  How can we be satisfied with the efforts we have made to promote and 
address the problem of violence against women when the committee cannot 
see fit to fund adequately these necessary programs? This bill as 
written sends a clear message to the Nation that this Congress does not 
take violence against women seriously.
  Women in danger of violence or sexual assault need our compassion, 
not deaf ears. I urge my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's 
amendment and to go on record with your commitment to the safety of 
America's women.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. 
Mollohan to H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1996. This amendment will provide much needed funds for 
community policing grants authorized by the Violent Crime Control Act 
of 1994.
  The programs that we authorized last summer are aimed at preventing 
crime in our communities and have been supported by the mayors, police 
chiefs, and law enforcement officials throughout our country.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to acknowledge that the fight against 
crime requires more than simply adding prison space or new classes of 
punishment. It requires that we demonstrate the courage to champion the 
innovative programs which provide alternatives to drugs, gangs, and the 
random acts of violence which afflict our society. The Mollohan 
amendment realizes this and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
                    amendment offered by mr. rogers

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: On page 22, line 6, strike 
     ``$102,400,000'' and insert ``$152,400,000'';
       On page 22, line 13, strike ``$32,750,000'' and insert 
     ``$82,750,000'';
       On page 24, line 4, strike ``$3,333,343,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,283,343,000''; and
       On page 24, line 6, strike ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,950,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. I 
think it is agreed to by both sides. It moves $50 million from the 
local law enforcement block grant to the Violence Against Women Grant 
Program.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that these funds would have been spent out 
of the local law enforcement block grant for domestic violence 
programs, but moving these resources will ensure that local communities 
will target it to domestic violence issues.
  Both the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] have worked closely with me and my ranking 
member on this amendment, and I applaud both of their efforts to pursue 
funding for this program and I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 25, after line 24, 
     add the following:
       ``Provided further, That if a unit of local government uses 
     any of the funds made available under this title to increase 
     the number of law enforcement officers, the unit of local 
     government will achieve a net gain in the number of law 
     enforcement officers who perform nonadministrative public 
     safety service.''

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there is an awful lot of talk about cops 
on the beat, but there is no provision in any of our legislation that 
ensures there be more cops on the beat. As an old sheriff, sometimes 
they hire three on the street and push three up into administrative 
type jobs. My amendment says that there shall be a net increase in 
street cops.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                   amendment offered by mr. mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 24, line 13, 
     strike ``$475,000,000'' and insert ``$505,000,000''.
       On page 24, line 18, strike ``$300,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$270,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 30 minutes, and 
that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose today to the body, I 
think, is about fairness in the distribution of scarce crime fighting 
dollars. It is really at the heart of it.
  Mr. Chairman, for Members who do not know, or for whom, perhaps, it 
would be helpful for the purposes of this debate to refresh their 
memory, in the crime trust fund we have approximately $4 billion that 
is allocated. Mr. Chairman, out of that $4 billion, approximately a 
half a billion is spent on the Federal level, and that includes 
enhancements to the immigration initiative. It is enhancements to the 
FBI, to U.S. attorneys, to the DEA, to the Border Patrol, and to the 
Judiciary, and a number of other miscellaneous programs. Out of that $4 
billion, that is about half a billion dollars.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, there is about $116 million in budget authority 
for prevention programs. So, we are getting close up to a billion 
dollars there. Then, Mr. Chairman, when we go into the State and local 
assistance accounts, which are the biggest accounts, there is $3.3 
billion.
  Out of that $3.3 billion, $2 billion goes into this program, the 
block grants, and last night we argued strongly that that $2 billion be 
apportioned to the COPS Program. Then that leaves about $1.3 billion. 
Out of that $1.3 billion, Mr. Chairman, approximately $475 million, 
about half a billion dollars, is apportioned for the Byrne Grant 
Program.
  Now, all of my colleagues know about the Byrne Grant Program. It is 
an extremely flexible program, getting money down to local law 
enforcement, which is used for a variety of purposes. There are about 
21 authorized purposes for Byrne grants and they are very good, because 
they are very flexible. Subsequently, they are very popular.
  For example, the DARE Program is funded through Byrne grants. The 
drug task forces are funded by Byrne grants all across this country in 
every State of the country. Byrne grant money is used for flexible 
purposes at all levels of Government. There is a half billion dollars 
in here for that Byrne grant money which is available to every State in 
the Union.
  Mr. Chairman, out of that approximately $1 billion left, we take the 
Byrne grant out and now we have just a little more than a billion 
dollars. $500 million, or half a billion dollars, is appropriated in 
this bill to reimburse States, seven States, Mr. Chairman, and really 
principally one, for incarceration of illegal aliens; to pay for prison 
guards, if you will.
  I am not suggesting during this debate, that we should not reimburse 
States for incarceration of illegal aliens. I think that is a proper 
purpose of the Federal Government within this crime trust fund. I do 
not object to the funding.
  I do question the level of funding, because I think it is 
disproportionate. It 

[[Page H7711]]
is, in fact, not fair. We have the Byrne Grant Program, which is about 
half a billion dollars, which is apportioned to all of the States, and 
we have the incarceration that goes to seven, and 80 percent of it to 
one State, to California.
  Mr. Chairman, in committee I offered an amendment to combine these 
accounts. The Byrne Grant Program, money is sent out to all the States 
on a formula basis, based on population essentially. So, every State 
shares proportionately in the Byrne grant money. Every State, based on 
its population, receives money. We cannot get any fairer than that.
  Under the Illegal Alien Program, it goes to States that incarcerate 
illegal aliens. The amendment that I offered in full committee would 
combine that money, send money to all the States, that billion dollars, 
and send that to all the States to be apportioned more fairly so that 
States have money to fight what is their particular crime problem, what 
is their particular priority.
  Now, we lost that pretty much on a party line vote in full committee 
and we could not get a rule to offer it. So today this amendment that I 
offer is far more modest than that. Mr. Chairman, we take out of the 
$500 million for incarceration of illegal aliens only $30 million and 
we apportion it to the Byrne Grant Program which funds it at its 
authorized level of $505 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this means more money for every State in the Union for 
the Byrne Grant Program. More money to every State, even the seven 
States that receive money from incarceration of illegal aliens.
  It does mean that the incarceration of illegal alien account is 
reduced by $30 million. The only State in the Union that receives less 
total dollars is California. But let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman,
 California gets 80 percent of $470 million; 80 percent of $730 million 
if my amendment is adopted.

  Mr. Chairman, it is a simple amendment, really. It is about fairness, 
it is doing what we can to get dollars apportioned across this country 
so that every jurisdiction can use these dollars for crime fighting. 
The benefits are set out in a handout that I will have for Members at 
the time of the vote, and it shows State by State, the benefit and the 
difference that this amendment would mean to the States and the 
difference is additional dollars to go into the Byrne Grant Program for 
local community law enforcement.
  California gets $3.6 more million for Byrne grant. New York would get 
$2 million more for Byrne grant. Illinois would get $1.3 million more 
for Byrne grant. West Virginia would get $208,000 more, which may not 
sound like a lot of money, but $208,000 for local law enforcement is a 
lot of money, particularly when it is used more efficiently for the 
Byrne Grant Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Mollohan amendment. I agree 
that the State and local communities need more money to fight crime. My 
bill already provides more resources than ever before to all State and 
local agencies to fight crime.
  We have already increased Byrne grants by $25 million over 1995, and 
what the administration requested. Between the almost $2 billion local 
block grant program, and the $475 million Byrne formula grant program 
that I proposed, every State will receive approximately 5\1/2\ times 
more money to fight crime than they received this year; 5\1/2\ times 
more.
  But for some States and local communities, addressing crime also 
means addressing the serious problems of illegal immigration, because 
often illegal immigration brings along with it other illegal criminal 
activities.
  As my colleagues well know, along with addressing crime in our bill, 
we include a serious commitment to addressing the problem of illegal 
immigration. Our initiative is not only focused on controlling the 
borders; it is equally focused on addressing the growing population of 
deportable illegal aliens and is heavily weighted on the criminal 
illegal alien population.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should not just give money to the 
States to reimburse them for the costs they are incurring without 
having a strong plan to address the underlying problem. This is a 
Federal responsibility and we are responsible for getting it under 
control.
  This bill, and the resources included in 1994 and 1995, provided 
during times when the subcommittee was under the watch of the gentleman 
from West Virginia, will significantly strengthen our ability to 
address illegal immigration.
  Our hope is that States' burdens will decline as our efforts are 
successful in dealing with this problem. My bill attempts to address 
the costs that States bear as a result of crimes committed by aliens. 
The Department of Justice tells me that these resources will be 
available to all States based on the level of incarcerated illegal 
aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Mollohan amendment and urge the Members to 
reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] who worked so very hard on the 
Byrne amendment last year, the Super-Byrne program. He worked with our 
colleagues and created a real awareness for this program with the 
amendment. He did an excellent job.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the Byrne program is built on one of the 
strongest principles I know: United we stand; divided we fall. It helps 
us fight the scourges of drugs and crime united as one.
  DARE is a good example of a partnership that unites parents, 
teachers, students, and police to keep our kids off drugs.
  When I was in the Sterling Heights DARE class some time ago, I saw a 
young officer with enormous energy who had developed personal rapport 
with the kids in his class. DARE means a lot to the children in my home 
communities.
  It also supports multijurisdictional task forces which unite law 
enforcement from all levels: county, State, and local. Criminals do not 
respect city limits, so these partnerships, like our local Combined 
Oakland-Macomb Enforcement Team, otherwise known as COMET, and our 
Narcotics Enforcement Team, otherwise known as NET, enable our law 
enforcement officials to pool resources and information across city 
lines.
  Last year, my friends, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], and I gathered support of 
over 150 Members from both sides of the aisle in support of this 
program. I understand the need and Federal responsibility for criminal 
illegal alien incarceration. There is an increase here of 250 percent.
  So, as a matter of priorities I believe we can afford this modest 
increase in Byrne without losing anything vital in our commitment to 
assiting the States with criminal illegal alien incarceration. We must 
never forget the frontline local enforcement people working to make our 
towns and our cities safer; to give our kids the heroes they deserve.
  Vote for the Mollohan amendment.
                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee that has just marked up comprehensive legislation to end 
the problem of illegal immigration, I rise in opposition to the 
Mollohan amendment on reimbursing our States for the costs of 
incarcerating illegal aliens. The Mollohan amendment violates the 
commitment that we made to our Governors and ignores Congress' 
culpability in the problem of illegal immigration.
  The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to prevent 
illegal immigrants from entering the United States. And removing 
illegal immigrants if they arrive. My bill, the Immigration in the 
National Interest Act, will accomplish this goal. It fulfills one of 
the Federal Government's central functions: securing our Nation's 
borders.
  In the past, Congress has been part of the problem, not the solution. 
Past 

[[Page H7712]]
Congresses have ignored the problem of illegal immigration and failed 
to stem the tide of illegal aliens entering our country. While Congress 
dithered, illegal immigrants entered our Nation in record numbers, with 
upwards of 1 million illegal aliens permanently entering our Nation 
every 3 years.
  Congress' failure to secure our Nation's borders has been a disaster 
for our citizens, our local government, and our States. Our citizens 
have been plagued by crime committed by illegal immigrants. And States 
have been forced to pay the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens whom 
the Federal Government did not prevent from entering our country and 
preying on our citizens. These State costs have resulted directly 
because, in the past, Congress refused to address the problem of 
illegal immigration.
  What has been the cost to States of Congress' failure to stem the 
tide of illegal immigration? The General Accounting Office estimates 
that incarcerating illegal immigrant felons costs States at least $650 
million per year. That translates into $66 million that New York cannot 
spend on schools, $43 million that Texas cannot spend on roads, and 
$400 million that California cannot spend on health care. All because 
the Federal Government failed to do its job.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not generally favor reimbursement as a means of 
solving our illegal immigration problems. We should prevent illegal 
aliens from entering the country, rather than spending money on them 
after they get here. However, Congress has made a commitment to our 
governors to help reimburse some of the costs that they have incurred. 
The Mollohan amendment goes back on this commitment and breaks our word 
to our governors.
  The Mollohan amendment is wrong for our citizens and wrong for our 
States. Keep Congress' word to Governor Bush, Governor Wilson, Governor 
Whitman, Governor Pataki, and others. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I invite the 
gentleman from Texas to stay in the well.
  The gentleman from Texas indicated that one of the premises of your 
talk was that there would be a net loss to States as a result of this 
amendment. I would just like to point out to you that, indeed, there is 
a net loss only to one State. That is California. For every other State 
in the Union, it is a net gain.
  Let me explain why, and it is true. For example, Texas would gain 
approximately half a million dollars net. It is a close call for Texas.
  Under my amendment, Texas would get an additional $2 million, in 
Byrne grant money, with all the flexibility that represents, and they 
would get a decrease of about $1.5 million from the illegal alien 
assistance program, for a net gain of $500,000.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate your 
point you just made. My concern is still the commitment we made to the 
Governors to reimburse the States.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, one of the premises was there would 
be a net loss to the States. That is incorrect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Stupak], another distinguished Member who has worked so hard on crime 
fighting and been such an integral part of our crime task force on the 
minority side.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Yesterday we had a fight on this floor about the Clinton COPS Program 
and your local block grant that you wanted over there. You claimed 
there was no flexibility in the Clinton program. Now we have the Byrne 
grant, which gives us 26 different programs, including illegal aliens. 
So this is all kinds of flexibility you want, and now you say, ``No, 
let us not do that, let us keep all the money in one pot for illegal 
aliens.''
  We are asking for 10 percent, or $30 million, of a $300 million pot 
to be used for the Byrne memorial grant which can be used for 26 
different programs, which can be used with all the flexibility you 
need.
  My colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, spoke of DARE. In my district 
we do bake sales and pancake breakfasts to fund the DARE program. We 
are asking for a little help for the DARE program.
  In my district, which has 23,000 square miles, we have undercover 
drug teams, which is a combination of Federal, State, and local 
officers, the same team, the TNT team, the Hunt teams, the upset teams. 
They do
 undercover drug work with the Byrne grant money. The arrests have gone 
up by 400 percent because of the cooperative efforts we have here. We 
could not do it without the Byrne Memorial grant.

  What we are asking for underneath the Mollohan amendment is take 10 
percent, $30 million of the $300 million, put it in the Byrne grants, 
and it still leaves $270 million for incarceration of illegal aliens. 
In Michigan that means $1 million more we have to work with under the 
DARE program and undercover drug teams.
  The Mollohan amendment makes sense from a law enforcement point of 
view. It makes sense for 49 of the 50 States in the Nation. Our No. 1 
priority in this country is crime and crime fighting. Here is a program 
that works, with all the flexibility you wanted yesterday. It is here. 
Do not gut this amendment. Please, support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly] who is chairman of the House task force on 
immigration.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the gentleman from West Virginia, which would eliminate $30 million 
earmarked for reimbursing States for incarcerating violent criminal 
aliens.
  Earlier this year the House passed H.R. 667, the Violent Criminals 
Incarceration Act of 1995. In that legislation was a provision 
sponsored by this Member which would authorize $650 million per year to 
reimburse States for the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens that 
commit felonies.
  In the bill before us today, there is only $500 million set aside for 
that purpose and this amendment would reduce this amount by another $30 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, the States can no longer afford to pick up the tab for 
the failure of the Federal Government to enforce its borders and 
enforce its immigration laws.
  For some perspective, the cost of this failure to California alone is 
over $500 million a year. But this is not only a California problem. 
There are over 4 million illegal aliens in our country and they are 
found in every State. Clearly, the States that are negatively impacted 
by this failure of Federal policy can no longer pay the bill for the 
fact that the Federal Government has shirked its responsibility to 
enforce its border and the law.
  I would just like to make one statement in relation to the gentleman 
from West Virginia: California gets less money per capita than any 
other State in the Nation as it relates to reimbursement for the 
incarcerating of illegal aliens under this legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, first, let us give credit where it is due. 
The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], as chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee that he is now the ranking member of, was 
the first person to put in money to reimburse costs for incarcerated 
illegal aliens last year.
  Second, although my friend from West Virginia is looking at early 
disbursement of this year's funding to determine the percentages, the 
fact is if his amendment passes, increasing a good program, the Byrne 
program, we take away not only from California but from Texas, Florida, 
and New York City, not just State governments, but local governments, 
county jails that are dealing with this problem. We take away that 
which we are obligated to finance.
  You cannot vote to compensate State and local governments for Federal 
mandates and then back away from the obligation to reimburse them for 
the costs of the failure of Federal policy. It is that simple.
  If you are not from New York or Illinois or California or Florida or 
Texas, I can understand why you might think you would do better. It is 
not right.
  I urge you to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida 

[[Page H7713]]
[Mr. Shaw] who is chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee in the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard this is a California problem. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Three thousand illegal aliens each and every day violate our borders 
and come into the United States. This is a national disgrace. It has 
gone on through administration after administration, Congress after 
Congress: Yet we have not acted.
  Our own State cannot act because, under the Constitution, this is a 
Federal responsibility, and it is a failed Federal responsibility in 
which we have failed our States.
  Right now 10 percent of the prison population in my home State of 
Florida is made up of illegal aliens. The Governor, Governor Chiles, 
just within the last hour has told me $80.7 million a year this alien 
population is costing the State of Florida, and in addition to that, 
because of the fact that it is 10 percent of our jail population, we 
are going to have to build 4 or 5 new prisons at a capital cost of $80 
million to $100 million.
  Why in the world is this a State responsibility? Not only because of 
this, but only because of the impact on our prisons, but the impact on 
our hospitals, on our school systems. Down in south Florida, the 
Jackson Memorial Hospital is overrun with illegal aliens, and yet we 
are taking that as a local responsibility to our own State funding to 
take care of these people.
  The impact is absolutely, absolutely incredible. For anyone to stand 
on this floor and talk about a Federal responsibility where we should 
take away 10 percent of the money that is not even funding half of the 
cost for the States today, I think, is very shortsighted and is overly 
parochial.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, we are not taking 10 percent. We are taking $30 million 
out of the half a billion.
  Mr. SHAW. I did not say you were taking 10 percent. I said the 
illegal aliens are 10 percent of our prison population in Florida, and 
it is a responsibility of the Federal Government to at least reimburse 
all of the States of this country, not just Florida, all of the States, 
to reimburse them at least a share of this extra cost, because of a 
failed Federal responsibility.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the point I wanted to 
make is we are trying to get Florida more dollars, and Florida is a net 
beneficiary under our amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. I heard you.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me make my point. It is my time. I will let you 
respond to me.
  Under the distribution, the first distribution of moneys under this 
program was $43 million. California got $33 million, Florida got $1 
million. Under my amendment, Florida gets $1.5 million. It is a net 
gain for the State of Florida and for every other State if this money 
is put through the Byrne grant program, and Florida can spend the 
money, if they want, on incarceration of illegal aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Luther].
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment 
in order to bring some balance to this particular bill.
  I can think of few initiatives here in Congress that work better for 
our local law enforcement officials than providing much needed 
assistance in drug prevention efforts, equipment acquisition, and 
overall support for law enforcement.
  When I talk to my local police chiefs and other local law enforcement 
officials back home, they respond with a simple plea, and that plea is, 
``Please, provide us with assistance on basic equipment, like fax 
machines and other support so that we can fight crime in our 
communities and also support strong prevention efforts.''
  I ask Members to support this amendment. Bring some balance to this 
bill, and let us use a smart approach when it comes to criminal justice 
activities.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I speak in some pain here because I do respect tremendously the 
ranking member on the committee, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan], and especially with all the efforts he has undertaken to try 
to provide law enforcement with the resources it needs and given his 
efforts so far on the issue of immigration.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, I see this as an issue where we are robbing from Peter 
to give to Paul. Both areas involve law enforcement; one is in the 
incarceration area, the other is with the Byrne grants. I am a strong 
supporter of the Bryne grants, but I must say we have a Federal 
commitment to provide States with reimbursement for criminal alien 
incarceration and, when we have a Federal commitment, we should live up 
to that commitment to provide the funds.
  Finally last year we took some action on the issue of providing 
reimbursement to States for the criminal incarceration of immigrants, 
and what we find now is that the President, having taken this first 
step, it should now be continued. We should continue with this effort 
to try to provide the funds to reimburse the States.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to follow our talk with our walk, 
and I would hope that what we will see is that, although we have two 
good programs, the Byrne grant program and the criminal incarceration 
of undocumented immigrants issue, we should try to meld the two and 
make sure that we are not taking from one to give to the other, because 
both are very good. In a tough time we should try to do the best we 
can, and I would hope that what we would find is that it is time for us 
to live up to our obligation of giving money to reimburse States for 
those obligations that really should be Federal obligations.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia. I realize that 
the Byrne grant program is a worthy program, however, I strenuously 
object taking $30 million dollars out of the funds which are committed 
to help reimburse States for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens.
  California will incarcerate nearly 19,200 illegal immigrant felons in 
State prisons this year. That is enough to fill eight new prison 
facilities to capacity. The cost to California taxpayers will be $503 
million. In fact, over the past 8 years, the total cost to California 
is over $2.5 billion.
  The current bill funds $300 million dollars for this reimbursement 
and I commend Chairman Rogers for his support for this program. 
However, the authorized level provides for funding up to $650 million. 
As you can see, we are currently funding less than half of what we 
could. It may not seem like a lot of money to some, but $30 million 
dollars is monumental to the States that have to foot the bill for what 
is widely recognized as a national problem.
  Until the Congress is able to provide fully, the authorized level of 
funding, a handful of States will continue to be penalized by the 
Federal Government's failure to combat illegal immigration and assume 
its proper responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, a reduction in funding such as the one Mr. Mollohan is 
proposing, unfairly increases the burden that California taxpayers will 
have to bear and increases what could be called an unfunded mandate. I 
urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan 
amendment.
  When the original Thirteen Colonies agreed to join together to ``form 
a 

[[Page H7714]]
more perfect union'', one of the powers they conferred on their new 
Federal Government was that of protecting the national borders from 
foreign invaders. Considering the fact that four million or more aliens 
are in our country illegally, it is abundantly clear that the Federal 
Government has woefully failed in its promise to the States to secure 
our national borders.
  The very least we can do is to assist the States in paying for the 
costs of imprisoning illegal aliens who have committed felonies against 
the people and property of their citizens. This amendment would be a 
backward step and would say to the States that we are unwilling to pay 
the costs of our breach of promise.
  Now is the time to reaffirm to the States our commitment to uphold 
our Federal responsibility and to attempt to reimburse them for the 
partial costs resulting from our failure to protect U.S. borders in the 
past and the present. We can never repay their citizens who have been 
murdered, raped, and robbed by those who should never have been allowed 
inside our country, but we can begin by paying the costs of imprisoning 
these felons.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as somebody who lives on the border, but 
as someone who was a mayor and a county supervisor, I recognize that 
law enforcement, neighborhood law enforcement, was the No. 1 
responsibility of a locally elected official and a responsibility. The 
Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility was the integrity of our 
national frontiers, and it was nice when the Federal Government helped 
us with our local responsibilities. It was a great effort. But those of 
us that are impacted severely by the abandonment of the Federal 
Government of their No. 1 obligation needs to have redresses of those 
problems, and I say this to my colleague, ``I understand your concerns, 
but you take care of your obligations before you start issuing people 
gifts, and this is a moral obligation.''
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is the State of California spends $400 
million-plus. In the existing formula, existing formula, there will 
still be a $100 million debt owed to that one State. Now this is an 
obligation that my colleagues may say we can walk away from for a 
while, but the obligation to protect our borders is a responsibility. I 
say to my colleagues, ``Don't abandon it because it is coming your 
way.''
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. This 
amendment would reduce the funding for reimbursing State and local 
governments for the costs of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens by 
$30 million.
  Last year, in an amendment that I offered with several of our 
colleagues, Congress created the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program [SCAAP] in recognition of the serious burden that costs 
associated with incarcerating criminal alien place on State and 
localities--costs which are a result of the Federal Government's 
failure to enforce immigration controls. In addition, thanks to the 
efforts of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], 
Congress for the first time appropriated funds for the SCAAP Program. 
And, in February of this year, the House of Representatives approved an 
amendment H.R. 667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, which 
provides that, before the Department of Justice can spend any funds 
authorized in the bill for prison construction, the Attorney General 
must reimburse States for at least $650 million of the cost of 
incarcerating illegal aliens convicted of felonies.
  This year also, largely because of the commendable efforts of 
Chairman Rogers and the subcommittee, funding for the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program [SCAAP] has been increased to $500 million. 
This is still $150 million below what is needed, but it would provide 
significant relief to the affected State and localities.
  Criminal aliens are people who have entered our country in violation 
of Federal laws; that makes their incarceration a Federal 
responsibility, and thus a cost that should be borne by all U.S. 
citizens, not just those who live in regions with large numbers of 
illegal immigrants. As the House of Representatives recognized with the 
passage of unfunded mandate legislation earlier this year, the Federal 
Government should not continue to pass the costs of Federal actions--or 
in this case, lack of effective Federal action--onto State and local 
governments. Yet that is precisely what we have been doing for years by 
making States and localities pay for the Federal Government's failure 
to stop illegal immigration.
  While State and local governments have the responsibility for 
incarcerating criminal aliens and processing their cases, they have no 
jurisdiction over the enforcement of immigration laws, no authority to 
deport aliens who are convicted of crimes, and no authority to ensure 
that those deported are not permitted to re-enter the country.
  From 1988 to 1995, the number of illegal alien felons in California 
State facilities has soared by 235 percent--from 5,700 to an estimated 
19,200 by the end of this year. During the same period, the total 
annual cost of incarcerating and supervising this population has 
skyrocketed from $122 million to an estimated $503 million by the end 
of the next fiscal year--a 310-percent increase. The cumulative cost 
during this 7-year period is in excess of $2.5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, shifting funds from the SCAAP Program to the Byrne 
grant program will disproportionately affect California, because of the 
enormously large population of illegal aliens in our State's prisons. 
California, like every other State, has drug and crime problems that 
are addressed by the Byrne program--and we would all like to be able to 
approve more money for it. But our attempts to deal with these serious 
problems are being overwhelmed by the Federal Government's failure to 
deal adequately with illegal immigration, and to meet its full 
responsibility to the States with respect to criminal aliens. Reducing 
this funding is counterproductive and will only exacerbate a very 
serious problem.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Mollohan 
amendment. Taxpayers in my home State of Florida, as well as many other 
States, for too long have had to bear the burden of really failed 
Federal immigration policies. That is what we are talking about.
  It is estimated that Florida spends in the area of $80.7 million, not 
$13 million. There was a number for $13 million. That is an old number. 
The Governor's office now tells us that number is $80.7 million 
annually to incarcerate illegal immigrants.
  As a matter of fact, costs are so high for this and other immigration 
related services that Governor Chiles had to file suit against the 
Federal Government for reimbursement, and I think everybody knows that 
Governor Chiles is in the same party as the President. He should not 
have had to do that. This is a clear Federal obligation, and earlier 
this year in H.R. 667 we took positive action to help our States with 
the financial burden.
  The Federal Government cannot shirk its responsibility in this, which 
is what the Mollohan amendment would allow. This amendment would take 
us back in the wrong direction, and that is why I am very strenuously 
in opposition to it and urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well, 
because when we look at the facts, it is going the wrong way.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Martini].
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Mollohan amendment.
  In the United States there are over 50,000 prisoners in State and 
Federal facilities who are not American citizens. The incarceration of 
criminal aliens costs taxpayers between $15,000 and $30,000 per inmate 
annually.
  Last year, American citizens spent between $800 million and $1\1/2\ 
billion feeding, clothing, and housing illegal aliens.
  It is a grave injustice to hold States like New Jersey hostile to 
such expenses for the Federal Government's failure.
  Mr. Chairman, illegal immigration has taken a toll on this country. 
Illegal aliens who commit crimes exact personal costs to the people 
they hurt as well as economic costs to those States who have to burden 
those costs.
  I urge an opposition to this amendment.
  
[[Page H7715]]

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 30 
seconds remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been some comments made about meeting our 
obligation to fight the illegal alien problem, and I would say in this 
bill, with the chairman's leadership, we have provided resources to do 
just that. We have provided resources under the INS for illegal alien 
problems: 700 new Border Patrol agents, 400 new inspectors, 945 new 
detention personnel, and 750 new investigators, and that is very 
robustly funded to the tune of about a half-billion dollars in the 
crime trust fund. We have provided $500 million in this bill for 
reimbursement to States for incarceration of illegal aliens. There is 
only $30 million out of that to spread around the country.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important moment. For the 
first time the Federal Government has stepped up to the plate to 
acknowledge its responsibility with the issue of illegal immigration.
  There is a perception this is simply going to benefit California. I 
was joking with the gentleman from West Virginia about that a few 
minutes ago. The fact of the matter is California will proportionately 
get less than any other State involved in this based on the number of 
illegals we have in California, and the figures that have been thrown 
about here, especially by my friend from West Virginia, are way off 
base. The best example was Florida, where we have seen an increase from 
13 to 80.7 million as the cost for the incarceration of illegals in 
that State.
  This is a very serious Federal problem. Let us defeat the Mollohan 
amendment and move ahead with the committee position.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


                     amendment offered by mr. scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott: Page 24, line 6, strike 
     ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert ``$2,300,000,000''.
       Page 24, line 23, strike ``$500,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through page 25, line 1, and insert ``$200,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 20 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There were no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in support of the amendment, and the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. It moves 
$300 million from prison construction funds to the local law 
enforcement block grant so that programs for prevention and cops can be 
funded to a larger extent. Mr. Chairman, this will have no effect on 
the money for incarcerating illegal aliens that we just heard the 
debate on. The prison grant program requires an increase in 
incarceration on a massive basis. We already have one of the highest 
incarceration rates in the world, over five times the international 
average.
  Mr. Chairman, increasing incarceration wastes the scarce resources 
that could be better spent on prevention. In Virginia, for example, Mr. 
Chairman, we have a program that we have just embarked on that will 
cost the State of Virginia $1 billion per congressional district over 
the next 10 years in increased prison expenses, and the estimates are 
that the reduction in crime will be less than 4 percent, statistically 
insignificant. Mr. Chairman, that is a national equivalent of spending 
$435 billion without any reduction in crime.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year we heard the city of Philadelphia 
needs about $2\1/2\ billion to build prisons, and again that is just 
one city. So more money and prisons will be a drop in the bucket as far 
as the crime rate is concerned. That money could be better spent, Mr. 
Chairman, on drug courts which take low-level drug abusers, possession 
only, nonviolent, and refer them into rehabilitation rather than 
prisons at a cost of 5 percent of what the prisons cost and will result 
in 80 percent reduction in crimes.

                              {time}  1330

  We heard last night about community policing and how that works, Job 
Corps, education programs, recreation programs. We have heard midnight 
basketball savaged on this floor, yet we do not hear that the crime 
rate went down 60 percent in Landover, MD when the midnight basketball 
program went into effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I have 3 cities in my district that are in the top 30 
in murder rate, so I want to make sure that we use our scarce resources 
in a way that will actually reduce crime. It is clear we will get more 
return for our money by putting it into local law enforcement, like 
crime prevention and community policing, rather than just in general 
increasing incarceration.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in the words of the poet Joseph Malins, 
in his poem ``A Fence or an Ambulance,'' ``It is better to put a strong 
fence around the top of a cliff than an ambulance down in the valley.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us build fences, rather than buying ambulances, and 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Scott amendment. The 
truth is that this amendment would eliminate what the Congress passed 
back in February in the crime bill. It would eliminate truth in 
sentencing grants to States and shift that money to local government 
law enforcement block grants.
  Now, we already provide in the bill 5\1/2\ times more for local crime 
programs than was ever provided in history by the Congress, and 
particularly 1995. They are going to have plenty of money to work with.
  What the gentleman would eliminate with this amendment, however, is a 
very critical part of the crime package that passed back in February as 
a part of the Contract With America, and that was to allow States to 
have grants if they lock up their violent criminals for a certain 
period of time.
  Convicted felons serve only 38 percent of their sentences now on 
average. This revolving door of justice is the heart of the crime 
problem. Truth in sentencing grants are a vital and sensible response 
to this problem. Lack of prison space is a national problem. It is 
appropriate for the Congress to respond by setting aside funds 
specifically for the purpose of increasing prison capacity on the State 
level for violent offenders.
  Local law enforcement block grants provide funding directly to local 
communities. States, not local communities, have the responsibility of 
building prisons. The Scott amendment would prevent States from 
receiving any funds for prison construction. The State prisons grant 
program ensures that States will have the resources to keep violent 
offenders locked up. Do not tear that from this bill. It will be a very 
critical part of the States' efforts and our effort on their behalf to 
fight violent criminals across the country.

[[Page H7716]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Scott amendment. Stay with 
us on the crime package.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
appreciate the chairman's attention to this very important matter.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been only about a year since the citizens of the 
State of Georgia had a legal lottery, and it apparently is doing 
somewhat well. Unfortunately, in Georgia, as in many other States, 
however, we have had a lottery for many, many years, and it is the 
lottery of revolving justice. Every criminal in our State, as well as 
all across this country, when they go out to commit a crime, they are 
purchasing a lottery ticket. They are betting the State in which they 
commit the crime will not have the wherewithal and the will to keep 
them incarcerated for a major part of their sentence, and they are 
getting out, as the chairman has already indicated, within, on average, 
after serving only 38 percent of their time, and in many instances it 
is far less than that time.
  The bill that we passed very soundly and very strongly in this body 
just a few months ago tells our States that, at least insofar as 
American taxpayer dollars are concerned, we are not going to stand for 
that, and when we the taxpayers of this country, through us in this 
Congress, direct the taxpayer money go back to the States to construct 
prisons, we want to see that those prisons are constructed and housed 
with inmates who are going to serve at least 85 percent of their time.
  I wonder what motivation anybody on the other side could have for 
saying we do not want them to serve 85 percent of their time. As a 
matter of fact, I would prefer if they served 100 percent of their 
time. But it is a very sound provision that we in this body passed, 
with very strong support of the American people, to tie prison 
construction funds, which go to the States, these are not local 
community block grants, the responsibility for building prisons in this 
country is essentially with our States. These moneys go to the States, 
but we are telling the States, ``Keep your prisoners in these prisons 
at least 85 percent of the time.'' This is very sound policy. It is at 
the core of why we are seeing such tremendous recidivist rates in our 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, there is in fact a direct correlation over the years 
between a decrease in the amount of prison time that those convicted of 
crimes serve and the recidivist rate.
  As the prison inmate rate goes up, as people serve more of their 
sentence, crime rates do in fact go down. That is the very sound reason 
and demonstrable public policy behind the provisions in the bill, and 
the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will in fact aid 
revolving-door justice in this country. We are telling the American 
people let's stop that revolving door, at least insofar as we are able 
through taxpayer dollars being used to construct prisons that will go 
to those States that have the will, the wherewithal, to say we are 
going to build those prisons, and, more importantly, we are going to 
ensure when we put somebody in one of those prisons, they are going to 
stay there for at least 85 percent of the time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am not aware of any studies that show 
that increasing the time served reduces the recidivism rate. The 
testimony we have heard in fact is that there is no reduction in 
recidivism rate generated by increasing the time served.
  This revolving door that we have is a revolving door because we are 
not putting our money into prevention. We are trying to build our way 
out of the problem. If we are going to be honest, we ought to 
acknowledge that 38 percent figure. If you want to move it up to a 100-
percent figure, you ought to add up and tell the American people what 
it is going to cost.
  In Virginia, proposal X that recently has been enacted, but not fully 
funded, increases the time served from about 25 to 50 percent, and that 
cost will cost Virginia $11 billion in the next 10 years. That is a 
national equivalent of spending $400 billion trying to build our way 
out of this problem.
  If we want to be honest, we will tell the people what result we are 
going to get. The studies have shown the result will be statistically 
insignificant. So this little $300 million we are talking about will 
not make any difference if we put it into incarceration. It is an 
insane strategy to try to build our way out of the problem. We ought to 
put our money where it will make a difference, and that is in 
prevention. That is why I have introduced the amendment, and hope it is 
agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin briefly on another subject, 
by complimenting Chairman Rogers and other members of the subcommittee 
in both parties for the emphasis they have placed in supporting 
assistant U.S. attorneys and agents in the field for the Federal 
Government, because that is where the proverbial rubber meets the road 
in terms of law enforcement. More crime is investigated and prosecuted 
with more professionals assigned to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment for several 
reasons. The gentleman from Virginia I think stated that his district 
was in the top 30 in the Nation in burglaries. I strongly suggest that 
if more of those burglars were off the street there would be less 
burglaries in the gentleman's district.
  The question was, in prison population related to crime. Well, first, 
I would point out that we have all heard the statistics that the number 
of people incarcerated in the United States has been going up. We all 
know that. But more recently, there have been a number of news articles 
pointing out that the percentage of crime, the crime rate in many 
areas, including violent crime, has been going down. So there is a 
general correlation that I think is obvious, that as the prison 
population goes up crime goes down.
  It is not that I think prisons are wonderful places, but if you take 
perpetrators off of the street, we have less crime. In fact, the U.S. 
Bureau of Statistics, I am informed, stated that in a study, those 
offenders who serve more than 5 years in prison actually were repeaters 
less often than those who served less than 5 years in prison.
  But the main point is when that criminal is out of prison, 
particularly repeat criminal, then that criminal is repeating crimes on 
the street, in the district of the gentleman from Virginia or any 
district.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the cost of prisons is high. 
There is no doubt about that. I think it can be reduced in many ways. 
But the fact of the matter is, it will never be inexpensive in a due 
process country that respects human rights. But I submit the cost of 
crime, particularly repeat crime, is greater than the cost of prisons, 
that a repeat offender committing crimes, particularly burglaries, 
because the average burglar does not commit one burglary a week, he 
commits one or more burglaries every single day, 365 days a year. It 
does not take long to compute the fact that even with moderate gains 
from each burglary, the cost to society in crime in pure dollars, not 
even talking about the human heartache of people having their homes 
invaded or businesses taken over, but the cost to society in pure 
dollars of having repeat criminals on the street is worse than the cost 
to society of prisons.
  This is not to say that there is not room for alternatives. Nothing 
in this truth in sentencing says that every single person convicted of 
any crime must go to prison. I do not believe that is appropriate in 
every case. But what truth in sentencing does recognize is that those 
States that are trying to make headway by establishing truth-in-
sentencing laws, which have come to mean requiring those who are sent 
to prison to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, and I agree 
with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], I think individuals deserve 
100 percent of their sentences, whatever the sentences might be, but 
truth in sentencing has come
 to mean serving 85 percent of sentences.

  That is often double what is served in many States. I regret to say 
in my own 

[[Page H7717]]
State of New Mexico the good time law there is one of the most liberal 
in the Nation. There is up to 50 percent off of sentences to prison for 
all kinds of crimes, including murder. So when the people of New Mexico 
see in their newspapers that a particular criminal is sentenced to a 
certain number of years in prison, that will be the headlines. They 
then have to read in the fine print the fact that that is not the real 
figure. The real figure is half of what is in the headlines.
  Now, truth in sentencing in the bill recognizes that keeping 
offenders, particularly repeat offenders, in prison longer will cost 
the States more money. That is an obvious fact, too. Every day someone 
is in prison is a cost to the State. I think it is a cost to the State 
that is warranted in a number of cases, because it saves money on the 
cost of crime. But, nevertheless, it occurs.
  Truth in sentencing does not force States to adopt truth-in-
sentencing laws. Truth in sentencing recognizes that because of the 
increased cost of keeping offenders, particularly repeat offenders, off 
of the street, there is an increased cost to the States to do so. For 
that purpose, the bill provides an incentive to support States 
economically with their difficult decision to keep offenders off of the 
street.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the truth in sentencing is an 
important part of the bill to keep offenders, repeat offenders, off of 
the streets, and I urge rejection of the Scott amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 10 
seconds of my time to clarify a word that was used.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Third Congressional District of Virginia 
has three of the top murder rates. I meant to say murder. I just wanted 
to correct the Record.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 
additional seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's correction that 
his district is in the top in murder rate, not burglary rate. But I 
think that my point, that keeping criminals off the street may help 
alleviate that problem, still stands.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  By eliminating the truth-in-sentencing prison grants, the amendment 
would let violent criminals loose on the streets to continue to prey on 
innocent Americans.
  The American people are tired of the liberals' soft-on-crime, hug-a-
thug approach. The American people want murderers and rapists behind 
bars.
  The senseless murder of a young girl named Cora Jones in rural 
Wisconsin tragically underscores what I've heard from thousands of 
people in northeast Wisconsin:
  It's time to get tough on criminals.
  Cora was killed by a criminal released on parole. If that criminal 
were in prison where he belonged, Cora would be alive today.
  People are scared about rising crime rates, and they are demanding 
action.
  The statistics are frightening.
  Every year, nearly 5 million Americans are victims of violent crime.
  Another 19 million are victims of property crime.
  A murder is committed every 21 minutes in the United States.
  A rape, every 5 minutes.
  A robbery, every 46 seconds.
  Why such staggering figures?
  Because we aren't keeping criminals in prison.
  Sixty-nine percent of young adults released from prison are arrested 
again within 6 years, after committing an average of 13 new crimes.
  Overall, 7 percent of criminals commit 70 percent of all violent 
crimes.
  It's no wonder Americans are fed up.
  We need a new approach to fighting crime.
  If a thug is behind bars, he can't commit another murder, rape, or 
robbery.
  But under this amendment, we will have no new prisons to hold violent 
criminals.
  These prison grants will go only to States that enact truth-in-
sentencing laws.
  Truth-in-sentencing laws mean a 30-year sentence is just that: 30 
years, no parole.
  Criminals will think long and hard before committing an offense if 
they know they won't be back out on the street in a few months. It's 
wrong that law-abiding Americans--who work hard, pay their taxes, and 
raise their kids--have to live in fear.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot rest until every man, woman, and child in 
America can walk down any street in America and feel safe.
  Vote against the Scott amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Scott] will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak: Page 24, line 7, after 
     ``Grants'' insert ``of such amount $600,000,000 shall be 
     available for rural areas in which the unit of local 
     government in such area has a population of less than 
     50,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, No. 41, is what I would 
consider the rural setaside amendment. What this amendment does is set 
aside approximately $600 million for rural law enforcement programs. 
The money would come from the $2 billion set aside for the local law 
enforcement block grant.
  When this bill was being considered by both authorizers and 
appropriators, the President had requested over $10 million to be set 
aside for rural law enforcement needs. As we went through the 
appropriation process, no money was set aside for rural America. As we 
had our discussions yesterday on the local law enforcement block grant 
program, to put money into local block grants, we found during the 
debate yesterday that the money will go to those communities which have 
the highest crime rates, the highest crime rates.
  Those of us who live in rural areas find ourselves relatively safe 
and free from high crime rates. Therefore, our communities will not be 
able to benefit underneath the existing appropriation as passed 
yesterday by the House, especially when we talk about the local law 
enforcement block grant. The high crime rate areas usually are urban 
areas. The money, therefore, this $2 billion would to go the urban 
areas. Rural law enforcement has no access to money for police officers 
or for equipment underneath this program.
  Those of us in rural areas were very pleased that the President's 
COPS Program recognized the specific needs of rural areas. The 
President had recognized rural areas as being those communities of less 
than 50,000. Therefore, my amendment has also recognized rural areas as 
being those of less than 50,000 population.
  Twenty-seven to 30 percent of the people in this country live in 
rural areas. We pay taxes. We need help with law enforcement. We need 
help with all kinds of programs with the Federal Government. What we 
are asking for is that some of this money in this local law enforcement 
block grant be set aside. Yesterday the Clinton COPS Program was 
defeated. Therefore, our access to law enforcement, to equipment, to 
personnel, to help rural areas has been denied underneath the majority 
vote yesterday.
  So what my amendment says is of this $2 billion set aside in the 
local law enforcement area, 30 percent be set aside for rural areas. It 
is interesting to note that where we are asking the money to come from 
is local law enforcement block grants. We are taking the word ``local'' 
as being the small communities including our rural areas.
  So, as you consider this amendment, if you have a community in your 
district where your population is less than 50,000 you would be denied 
any kind of funding. The only place we can find where rural areas are 
considered at all in this bill is found on page 38 in the report where 
it says, for domestic violence and child abuse enforcement 

[[Page H7718]]
they have set aside $7 million annually for 27 to 30 percent of the 
country. Rural areas have more than just domestic violence and child 
abuse enforcement. So, therefore, we are asking the Federal Government 
for some help.
  With this amendment, amendment No. 41, we are asking then that 30 
percent of the total local law enforcement block grant money be set 
aside for rural areas.
                             point of order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against this 
amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Stupak amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill, because it attempts to earmark $600 million for a program for 
rural areas which is not authorized in law. The amendment attempts to 
amend the local law enforcement block grant which is an unauthorized 
program that is permitted to remain under the rule.
  According to the ruling of the Chair on July 12, 1995, where an 
unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general 
appropriation bill, an amendment directly changing the amount in that 
paragraph and not adding legislative language of earmarking separate 
funds for another purpose is in order as merely perfecting. Clearly, 
this amendment does more than merely change the amount in the 
paragraph. It adds legislative language and earmarks a portion of the 
funds for a new purpose and so constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  I ask for the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, if we look on page 
39 of the report and even coming back to H.R. 728, which we debated on 
February 14, 1995, under the title local law enforcement block grant, 
throughout the bill we talk about local law enforcement block grant. 
What we have merely done was do the perfecting that is allowed 
underneath hereby defining what local is. We are not saying that what 
the local law enforcement block grant is those communities with 
populations less than 50,000. This is a perfecting amendment to the 
authorized program.
  When we talk about local law enforcement, nowhere in the bill, 
whether it is the authorizing bill or whether it is this appropriation 
bill, do they identify and state to us what local is. This would be a 
perfecting amendment. Therefore, I feel it would be appropriate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Kentucky regarding 
unauthorized earmarking, the point of order is sustained.


              amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida: Page 18, line 
     2, strike ``$2,574,578,000'' and insert ``$2,539,578,000''. 
     Page 77, line 8, strike ``$233,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$268,000,000''.


                             point of order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would increase the level of budget 
authority/outlays in the bill in violation of clause 2(f) of rule XXI. 
This rule states that ``it shall be in order to consider en bloc 
amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations among objects in 
the bill without increasing the levels of budget authority or outlays 
in the bill.''
  The amendment would increase the level of budget authority outlays in 
the bill. We have CBO scoring which shows a net increase in outlays of 
$1,753,000. So, therefore, it violates a rule of the House.
  I ask for the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I have a colloquy with the 
gentleman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot conduct a colloquy on a point of 
order. The gentleman may be recognized on the point of order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, more importantly, I seek 
unanimous consent to amend the amendment as offered, to increase the 
measure as proposed by $33 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman say to increase or to decrease?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking an increase of 
$33 million. The gentleman's point of order says I am a million plus 
over. I now ask unanimous consent to amend my amendment to increase by 
$33 million the funding that I seek.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to 
the gentleman that this amendment be withdrawn while he has a chance to 
discuss the matter with this Member, perhaps, to see what can be worked 
out.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's 
admonition.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by ms. norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Norton: Page 29, strike line 12 
     and all that follows through line 18.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided between the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress did the right thing in 1993 when it 
finally allowed women in prison to elect an abortion among the medical 
services provided them. We overturned the barbaric policy that allowed 
such abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered or when 
rape had occurred, not even apparently when incest was involved.
  Women in prison, Federal prisons, earn between 10 and 40 cents an 
hour. There is no hope that they could get the average $231 that an 
abortion in the first trimester costs. Yet these are the women most in 
need of choice. These are the women in our country who have led the 
most chaotic lives. These are the women who are least capable of taking 
care of themselves. They have not been able even to keep within the 
law. These are the women least able to bear and relate to children.
  Who will speak for these children? We must speak for these children. 
We must speak for these women.
  I strongly favor and would rise just as adamantly to protect the 
rights of these women to bear children in prison, if they desire. But 
surely we would not want to deny a woman the right to choice in prison. 
Two-thirds of these women are drug offenders. More than two-thirds are 
40 or under. Most of them are of reproductive age. Many of these women 
are HIV infected or have full-blown AIDS. Many are addicts who have 
landed in prison, very often.
  In the last 11 years, the number of women in Federal prisons has more 
than doubled, more than tripled. These 

[[Page H7719]]
women have themselves been the victims of wholesale physical and sexual 
abuse.
  What happens to these women happens to their fetuses or to their 
children. In prison they are subjected to a high-starch prison diet. 
Nobody brings in the right WIC food for women in prison.

                              {time}  1400

  Prison is not where people go to get prenatal care. These women have 
to contemplate the fact that if they were to bear a child to term, they 
would have to be separated from that child. These are the women in our 
society most in need of choice--those in Federal prisons. They do get 
counseling, including religious counseling and social counseling. This 
is not, for a women in prison, any more than for any other woman, a 
decision that can or should be made lightly. In effect, if these women 
do not have choice, of course, we are forcing women who are 
incarcerated to bear children. This is not America if that is what we 
are prepared to do, particularly given the particular kind of 
population that we find in Federal prisons today.
  Mr. Chairman, we must, even at this time in the proceedings, try to 
be remembered for other than being the Congress who looked for each and 
every opportunity to deny women the most fundamental of rights. We have 
done it to women in the military who are serving their country, we have 
done it to Federal workers, we have done it to Federal planning 
overseas, and today in committee we passed, or the committee passed, a 
provision making it optional for States to fund for rape and incest. 
How low are we willing to sink on the question of abortion? How far are 
we willing to go to deny the most fundamental of rights?
  Mr. Chairman, whatever we think and wherever Members stand on the 
notion of choice generally, I hope Members will now allow themselves to 
be recorded as forcing women who are incarcerated to bear children 
against their will.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. This bill 
reinstates a provision which was carried in the bill prior to fiscal 
1994. That provision prohibits Federal tax dollars from being used to 
pay for abortions for Federal prison inmates. This amendment would 
strike that provision, that prohibition.
  The issue here is very simple and clear. The question is should 
taxpayers' money be used to pay for an abortion. Time and again, the 
Congress has debated this issue. Time and again the Congress' answer, 
and more importantly, the answer of the American taxpayer, has been no. 
I urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment, and urge that the bill 
be supported.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton amendment which would 
remove the ban on access to abortion services for incarcerated women, 
except in cases of rape or life endangerment.
  There are currently 5,984 women incarcerated in Federal Bureau of 
Prisons facilities, the majority--68 percent--of whom are serving 
sentences for drug offenses. Most of the women are young, were 
frequently unemployed, and many were victims of physical or sexual 
abuse. According to a 1987 survey, 6 percent of women in prisons and 4 
percent of those in jail were pregnant when admitted. Limited prenatal 
care, isolation from family and friends, and the certain loss of 
custody of the infant upon birth present unusual circumstances that 
exacerbate an already difficult situation if the pregnancy is 
unintended.
  Because Federal prisoners are totally dependent on health care 
services provided by the Bureau of Prisons, this ban, in effect, 
prevents these women from exercising their constitutional right to 
abortion. Most women prisoners were poor when they entered prison, and 
they do not earn any meaningful compensation from prison jobs. This ban 
then closes off their only opportunity to receive such services, and 
thereby denies them their rights under the Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I think this 
is absolutely a very essential thing that we should be doing. The 
gentlewoman from Maryland also made an important point in that when 
women are in prisons as prisoners, first of all, they are not in the 
best of shape, obviously, to start or raise a family. Second, one never 
really knows about their total health condition, and they have no 
option to go outside if they disagree with what is being imposed upon 
them.
  I thought it was outrageous to impose this on women in the military 
and dependents in the military who are overseas, but they certainly 
have more options than women in prisons. What we are really doing is 
mandating motherhood for them, and denying them the right to full 
health care benefits that women would have on the outside.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is no exemption here 
for incest or for many other things that I think concern people very 
much. I really would hope that the membership would think about this. 
My understanding is that the Congressional Budget Office has scored the 
amendment and said that there was no scoring effect to that. I would 
like to ask the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia if that is 
correct.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman, this has 
not been a huge spending item, obviously, or they would have found this 
was a terrific cost?
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, indeed, 
there have been only nine abortions since this right has been in 
effect, and women in prison have fewer abortions than women outside, 
and more choose to carry their babies to term, considerably more than 
choose to have abortions, so that what we are asking for here is merely 
for genuine choice.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman makes a very 
good point. There is some kind of image out there that this is some 
benefit to women in prisons and so forth and so on, but the statistics 
show just the opposite, just as they did with the women in the 
military, where there were a whole 10 abortions. Most people figured 
this was because of some disease-related complication or many other 
kinds of complications that could occur.
  I find it really amazing that we are doing this type of thing to 
women. It seems like women were maybe the fad last year, but we cannot 
unroll their rights fast enough this year. We keep unrolling them. I 
urge Members to vote for the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I hear some people saying we 
have too many votes on abortion. I frankly do not like a lot of votes 
and debate on this issue. Let me just say very candidly and clearly 
that absent the votes and the amendments and the language we will be 
paying for, in one appropriations bill after another, abortion on 
demand.
  This is not a benign process. If there is not explicit language 
proscribing the use for abortion, we will then be subsidizing abortion 
on demand. This language that is included by the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Hal Rogers, the chairman of the subcommittee, would stop 
funding abortions in the Bureau of Prisons. Forty or so abortions were 
done prior to the language going into effect some time ago in the 
1980's. The gentleman from California, Bob Dornan, was the author of 
that language.

[[Page H7720]]

  It seems to me it is worth the inconvenience, it is worth the 
difficulty, and again, I do not like going through this time and time 
again, but it is worth it if we can cease the facilitation and the 
subsidization of the killing of at least one child, and in this case we 
are talking about dozens of children. It seems to me that again we are 
talking about Government subsidization of abortion on demand.
  The pendulum, without question, is swinging in favor of life. People 
no longer want to subsidize and pay out of their pockets for the 
chemical poisoning or the literal dismemberment of an unborn child's 
body. We happen to believe that the women are the victims as well, the 
co-victim, if you will. We want to see positive, nonviolent solutions 
to women who have pregnancies that were unintended, not the killing of 
their unborn babies.
  Please, do not force me, my wife and my family and all of us, to pay 
for it. Again, the language the gentleman from Kentucky has put in 
would do that. Defeat the Norton amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask who has the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has the right 
to close. He has 11 minutes and 20 seconds remaining. The gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia has 6 minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Prisons has gone to great lengths to 
make sure that it is operating within the law, and indeed, has attached 
conditions to abortion that do not obtain in every State of the Union. 
For example, there must be medical, religious, or social counseling 
sessions offered. There must be written documentation that these 
sessions have taken place. The process is laid out in great detail in 
order to make sure that there are no violations. Those who are on the 
staff and somehow involved also have their rights protected. No staff 
or supervisory person need be involved with these decisions at all. The 
Bureau of Prisons, it seems to me, has handled this sensitive issue in 
just the right way, and the question before the House is are we 
prepared to handle this issue in just the right way.
  Almost all of these women will be faced with two choices: Either make 
the choice for abortion, or make the choice to have a child who they 
will have very little, if anything, to do with. Most of these children, 
if they are carried to term, will go to the State. Since the majority 
of these women are women of color, in effect that means putting 
children born in prison into the foster care system.
   Mr. Chairman, the foster care system cannot absorb the children of 
parents who are not in prison. The GAO has written a report on the 
foster care systems in a number of States. It is an appalling report. 
The situation is the same all over the country: too few foster parents, 
too many children. If a woman decides when she is incarcerated that she 
would like to choose an abortion, society, it seems to me, should be 
where she wants to be, just as it would be if she made that choice and 
were not in prison.
  Remember, Mr. Chairman, of whom we are speaking. Since more than two-
thirds of these women are in prison for drug offenses, understand that 
most of them were selling drugs because they were addicts themselves, 
many of them crack addicts. That says all we need to hear about their 
own pregnancies. The decision to carry a child or not carry a child 
should not be circumscribed by whether one happens to be incarcerated 
or not. The nature of the duress is even greater if the woman involved 
is, indeed, incarcerated.
  I recognize that this issue is now and always will be contentious in 
this House. I would hope that at some point and for some women, we 
would understand the consequences sufficiently so we would not vote in 
knee-jerk ways on this sensitive issue. I ask, therefore, Mr. Chairman, 
for support of the Norton amendment, in the name of these women who 
cannot speak for themselves.
                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Ms. Norton's 
amendment. My colleagues, what we have seen throughout this 
appropriations process is a direct assault on the right to choose. The 
ban on Federal funds for abortions for women in prison is just the next 
in a long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. This 
assault on the constitutional rights of women must be stopped.
  The antichoice forces have not directly confronted the basic right, 
because they know that the vast majority of American people support 
women's reproductive rights. Rather, they have chipped away at it, 
hoping that American women will not notice. We must prove them wrong. 
We must stand up and say ``We do notice, and we will not stand for 
it.''
  What is particularly shameful about the strategy of the abortion foes 
is that they have singled out groups of women for attack. I suppose 
that their theory is that most American women will not notice until it 
happens to them, and then it will be too late. Just look at their 
record in both the appropriating and authorizing committees this 
summer:
  In the Labor-HHS bill, funding for abortions for indigent victims of 
rape and incest was cut;
  Also in the Labor-HHS bill, funds for family planning services for 
poor women were zeroed out;
  In the Treasury-Postal bill, Federal employees have been barred from 
purchasing insurance with abortion coverage;
  Earlier this summer, in the DOD authorization bill, military women 
were barred from purchasing abortions on bases overseas with their own 
funds;
  At the Judiciary Committee, they are considering authorizing 
legislation that would ban one of the safest procedures for women who 
face a late-term abortion due to a severe threat to her life or health, 
or a severe fetal anomaly;
  And now, they want to ban abortion funds for women in prison.
  Poor women. Victims of rape and incest. Federal employees. Women in 
the military. Women facing severe health crises. Women in prison. Who 
is next? It could be any of us. We must stop this assault on 
reproductive rights now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment, and to say no 
to this rolling back of the reproductive rights of American women.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, as the issue is starkly simple. 
Do we use Federal funds to pay for abortions? Time and again, Congress 
has said no. Time and again, the American people have told us to say 
no, that these moneys should not be used for that purpose.
  The amendment would strike the prohibition in the bill that prevents 
funds from being used for that purpose. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          AMENDMENT NO. 46 OFFERED BY MR. FIELDS OF LOUISIANA

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page 
     24, line 6, strike ``$2,000,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``1995'' on line 9 and insert ``$1,800,000,000 shall 
     be for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 
     728 as passed the House of Representatives on February 14, 
     1995; $200,000,000 for crime prevention and model grants as 
     authorized by title III of the 1994 Act;''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.

[[Page H7721]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. ROGERS. I am opposed, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman and the ranking member on our 
side of the aisle for all the hard work they have done on this 
particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It 
is an amendment that many Members of the House have already considered 
in one form or another.
  This amendment will take 10 percent of the $2 billion and use that 
money for crime prevention. This bill appropriates $2 billion in the 
form of a block grant. This amendment will simply take 10 percent of 
that, which would be about $200 million, and $200 million will be used 
for the precise purpose of prevention.
  When we passed the crime bill in 1994, we enumerated several crime 
prevention programs within that legislation and we balanced the bill 
such that money will not only go into jails and prisons but also go 
into crime prevention.
  If we pass the Fields amendment, this amendment will provide the $200 
million that could be used for the Ounce of Prevention Council which 
was a part of the 1994 crime bill; Local Crime Prevention Block Grant 
Program; the Model Intensive Grants Program; Family and Community 
Endeavor Schools Grant Program.
  All these programs are very conducive programs for preventing crime 
so that we will not spend the kind of money that we spend today in 
locking people up and putting them behind bars: Family and Community 
Assistance Program; Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth; Police 
Retirement; Local Partnership Act; the National Community Economic 
Partnership; the Urban Recreation and At-Risk Youth Program; Community-
Based Justice Grants for Prosecutors; the Family Unity Demonstration 
Project; substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons as well as State 
prisons; and Gang Resistance and Education Training, which is a great 
program that many people in many States across the country use.
  I think this is a very important amendment and I would hope that 
Members accept this amendment. We spend $60,000 to build a jail cell in 
this country, $30,000 to maintain it. This is prevention. I think it is 
in the best interests of our country to spend money where it is most 
needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It takes 
$200 million from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program to fund 
crime prevention programs like midnight basketball, homework 
assistance, after-school programs, nutrition services, family 
counseling, job programs to prevent crime, grants for education, 
recreation facilities and so on and so forth.
  We have voted on these things now time and again. We voted yesterday 
on this. The House by a huge majority rejected this type of funding. 
These are the midnight basketball programs that are back with us again. 
We turned them down in the Mollohan amendment yesterday.
  They are back with us again today. I have no doubt they will be with 
us tomorrow and from here on to eternity. But nevertheless the House 
says ``no.'' How many times do we have to say no? I hope that the House 
will do short order on this and will vote down this amendment as it has 
repeatedly.
  What the amendment says is that we believe that Washington knows how 
local communities should spend their money to prevent crime. Instead of 
letting communities decide what they want to do with the money, this 
amendment spreads $200 million over a host of programs, tells them how 
much they can spend and for what purposes, whether they like it or not.
  We are back to the same old thing of ``one size fits all,'' all 
communities are just exactly alike, and Washington knows how to 
administer funds to all of them irrespective of their own 
peculiarities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to reject this effort, stay with us on 
sending money back to the local communities for them to decide how they 
would like to spend their money in preventing crime and in punishing 
crime once it takes place.
  I urge Members to reject again midnight basketball for the 18th time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support his amendment. I think it makes good 
sense. What we do here in Washington is basically try to strike a 
balance between Federal planning and priorities and local planning. Not 
all local planning is good, not all Federal planning is bad.
  The gentleman's amendment simply says, let's give 90 percent of the 
money to the locals and let them make the decisions, but let 10 percent 
reflect certain national priorities. The specific national priority he 
is talking about is crime prevention.
  When I talk to local law enforcement officials, they say crime 
prevention is essential. We cannot arrest ourselves out of the crime 
problem. We have to have prevention.
  What is important about the prevention programs provided in this 
amendment? I would like to refer specifically to two: The first is 
substance abuse treatment in Federal and local prisons. Why? Because 
substance abuse leads to recidivism which means prisoners come out of 
prison, commit more crimes because they have substance abuse problems, 
and then
 they go back in the prison system and we the taxpayers pay $25,000 a 
year to keep them in prison. We need substance abuse treatment.

  Second, I refer Members to the Gang Resistance Program, called GRATE. 
We have it in my district and it works. One of the biggest threats in 
our society today is the emergence of organized gangs. To the extent 
that at a national level we say that it is important to thwart the 
emergence of these gangs, we are making good Federal decisionmaking.
  I would urge my colleagues not to say that all Federal decisionmaking 
is bad and all local decisionmaking is good, but to strike a reasonable 
balance that enables us to impart certain Federal priorities for 
fighting gangs and for substance abuse treatment as well as other 
programs that have been proven to work. Prevention works. Please vote 
for prevention.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I express great appreciation to our 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], for his 
leadership in this area, and his efforts to make sure that when we 
address this crime issue, that we do it in a comprehensive sort of way 
and look to prevention.
  I want to note that the chairman, in his mark, does look to 
prevention as I add up the numbers. There is $166 million in the crime 
trust fund for prevention programs. We have just recently added $50 
million, through the chairman's good graces, to the violence against 
women account. The subcommittee transferred $40 million over to Labor-
HHS, all for violence against women.
  All of these are prevention programs. What the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] does here is simply add a few more dollars to 
prevention programs, recognizing that intervention, particularly with 
our youth at an early stage, can prevent the crime that we are trying 
to fight here, and prevention 

[[Page H7722]]
is just that, prevention. For every dollar we spend there, we pick up a 
lot of dollars on the crime-fighting side.
  I strongly support the gentleman's amendment. It is a relatively 
small amount of money added to the already $166 million that the 
chairman supports, as I add it up here, and it is a little complicated 
because we have a number of different counts.
  But the point is, our chairman has supported prevention, we are 
supporting it. The Fields amendment would support it, give greater 
resources, and we need them. We need them for programs like family 
demonstration grants and at-risk youth grants. I do not think anybody 
in this body can deny that.
  I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why this bill refers to 
the Local Law enforcement Block Grant Program. These are law 
enforcement block grants. They are not education block grants, they are 
not family counseling block grants, they are not after-school program 
block grants, they are not nutrition block grants. These are law 
enforcement block grants. This is to enforce the law, not just to 
prevent crime but also to punish it after it takes place.
  There are hundreds of programs on the books of this Federal 
Government that provide moneys for those types of programs. In the 
Department of Education, in the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and so forth, there are all sorts of moneys available for 
those types of things.

                              {time}  1430

  This money in this bill is for law enforcement and we have voted on 
this time and again, as recently as yesterday, to reject this type of 
an approach.
  I urge my colleagues to stay with the bill's provisions for providing 
local governments block grants to fight crime with a Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant Program. Do not water it down with midnight 
basketball. We can do that elsewhere.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Fields] will be postponed.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed. They will be considered in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan]; amendment No. 36 offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Scott]; amendment No. 54 offered by the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. Norton]; and amendment No. 46 offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
                amendment no. 4 offered by mr. mollohan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings. This 
will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 256, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 572]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                               NOES--256

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White

[[Page H7723]]

     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Jacobs
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1453

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. COX of California, 
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. MILLER of California changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. NADLER, TAYLOR of Mississippi, CREMEANS, NEY, HEINEMAN, 
SCHUMER, KASICH, TANNER, and EDWARDS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair 
again announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the 
period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken 
on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
                 amendment no. 36 offered by mr. scott

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 321, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 573]

                               AYES--105

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--321

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Olver
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1501

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by ms. norton

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton] on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 281, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 574]

                               AYES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams

[[Page H7724]]

     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--281

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. OBEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DURBIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], I voted ``no.'' I was in 
error as to the order that the votes were being called. I would like 
for the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 
574.


              amendment offered by mr. fields of louisiana

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 296, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 575]

                               AYES--128

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--296

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

[[Page H7725]]

     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Lazio
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Stockman

                              {time}  1517

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 575, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ''no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, July 25, I missed rollcall 
vote No. 571 during consideration of H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, 
State appropriation bill for fiscal year 1996. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, rather than call up the amendment that I had filed on 
this topic, I want to discuss briefly with the subcommittee chairman an 
issue concerning a provision in the bill that would transfer a 
significant number of departmental lawyer positions to the U.S. 
Attorney's offices.
  Mr. Chairman, after our subcommittee completed its work on this bill, 
I learned from the Department of Justice that they had some serious 
concerns about this proposal, which was to transfer several lawyers out 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and the Tax Division 
out into the offices of the several U.S. Attorneys. In particular, a 
letter from the Assistant Attorney General Lois Schiffer about this 
complained that it would cause ``* * * severe problems for the 
Environment Division'' and would ``* * * threaten the effective 
enforcement of our environmental laws, clean water, clear air, and 
clean land.'' I share these concerns.
  As the chairman knows, the U.S. Attorneys have broad 
responsibilities, including prosecution of many, many different kinds 
of cases involving narcotics violations and other criminal offenses. I 
am just concerned that this transfer might have the unintended and 
unfortunate effect of lessening our ability to adequately represent the 
interests of the United States and the American people in these 
environment and natural resource cases.
  I wonder if the subcommittee chairman could assure me he is willing 
to consider these problems raised by the Department of Justice and 
would be open to working with the Department on their concerns as we 
proceed through the rest of the process with this bill in the Senate 
and in conference?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that it is our 
intent to continue enforcement of our environmental and tax laws, at 
least at the current rate. We state this in our report to the bill. I 
will carefully review the objections of the Justice Department and will 
remain open to working with the Department on this issue as we proceed 
on the bill.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for his observations.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Colorado and the 
chairman of the subcommittee. I wanted to confirm as well the response 
to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. Chairman, you are saying that you would yield maximum flexibility 
to the Attorney General to determine who would be transferred and where 
they would be transferred from and give them an opportunity to get some 
feedback from the attorneys themselves, so that we would not see the 
loss in cost of time and money that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs] referred to in the letter we received from the Assistant 
Attorney General?
  I am equally concerned that this move, which I know is intended to 
accomplish efficiencies, might in fact backfire because we have so many 
cases tried in Washington that it might wind up costing us more money, 
and, if there is to be a transfer, you would rely upon the advice of 
the Attorney General in letting the Attorney General reach those 
decisions on how to carry out the language that is in the report.
  Mr. ROGERS. I think I have responded adequately.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, 
because I, too, had some of the similar concerns that have been brought 
up in the colloquy about the transfer of the 200 attorneys from the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division and Tax Division of the 
Department of Justice to the U.S. Attorney's Office. It has been well-
intended, as we know, and yet there are unintended consequences with 
regard to the disruption to Federal law enforcement, the question about 
whether we would even save money. It may slow down the Justice 
Department's ability to resolve caseloads, and it may increase the 
number of cases that would be handled by the Tax and Environment 
Divisions that are heard in local courts in Washington, as well as the 
cost.
  So I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee chair is going to try 
to ameliorate this situation, to remedy it, and I support the colloquy. 
I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], for having initiated 
it.


              amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida: Page 18, line 
     2, strike ``$2,574,578,000'' and insert $2,537,078,000.
       Page 77, line 8, strike ``$233,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$268,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and all amendments thereto 
be concluded in 20 minutes, and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in support of the amendment, and the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase by $35 
million the funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 
This amendment would bring the EEOC to the administration's requested 
level of $268 million.
  I have offset this increase by taking $37.5 million from Federal 
prisons, salaries and expenses, because I believe that fighting 
discrimination will yield greater results than buttressing the prison 
system. The committee increased the appropriation for Federal prisons 
by $236 million and recommended that $57 million of these dollars go 
toward activating 10 new and expanded facilities.
  In this particular matter, despite the effectiveness of reforms 
undertaken by the EEOC, I do not believe that they will be able to 
fulfill their duty in a timely manner unless they have the resources to 
do so. Every day new cases are added to the caseload of this agency. 
The committee report states that the committee is confident that the 
EEOC will be able to streamline the process and thereby reduce the case 
numbers. However, I do not share such blind confidence.
  There are approximately 771 caseworkers at the EEOC. This means that 
the average caseworker is handling more than 135 cases at one time. 
Gilbert Cassellas, chairman of the EEOC stated during the May 11, 1995 
hearings before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, that even 
if the Commission took no more cases, it would still take the 
organization 18.8 months to finish its present caseload.
  Consider the fact that 97 percent of this country's Fortune 500 
companies' 

[[Page H7726]]
senior management positions are filled by white males. Women and 
minorities still make significantly less than white males. In 1992, 
white women made 70 cents for every dollar white males made, and black 
males made 74 cents for every dollar made by their white counterparts. 
These facts demonstrate that considerable discrimination is continuing 
in this country, unfortunately.
  It is unconscionable that we create a commission such as the EEOC and 
not give them the tools to meet their goals. This country is divided 
over the issue of race and gender. We must not undermine programs that 
actively deal with such discrimination.
  The work of the EEOC is not complete, as evidenced by the fact that 
almost 100,000 complaints have yet to be examined. Given the recent 
attacks on affirmative action, I feel it is imperative that the EEOC is 
able to fulfill its mandate of protecting all American workers from 
discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise 
in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, would take $35 million out of vitally needed 
resources to open new prisons. I am not talking about the merits of the 
gentleman's proposal to help EEOC. I am just talking about what it is 
going to do to us if we do this amendment.
                              {time}  1530

  These are prisons that are almost complete and will be coming on line 
in 1996. Mr. Chairman, we have spend hundreds of million of dollars to 
build five new prisons and expand five others, all of which will be 
ready for occupancy in 1996. These facilities will not open if this 
amendment should pass. They will sit there empty. Meanwhile we have got 
crowded prisons all over the country.
  We are at 140 percent or so of occupancy in the Federal prison 
system, at least. And these 10 new facilities are absolutely vital to 
relieve the overcrowding that exists in the present prisons, not to 
mention the heavy influx of new prisoners that we expect in 1996.
  Here is an example of some of the facilities that will not open if 
this amendment passes: A low- and minimum-security facility in 
Beaumont, TX, a low- and minimum-security facility in Taft, CA, and a 
facility in Forrest City, AR. Five new expansions will not be available 
in Tallahassee, FL, in Milan, MI, in Lompac, CA, Fort Worth, TX, and 
Lexington, KY.
  As a result, nearly 9,200 more Federal prison beds will be sitting 
vacant and unused if this amendment passes. The Federal prison system 
is the second most overcrowded system in the Nation. Overcrowding would 
increase by 132 percent in 1996. We simply cannot tolerate this when 
the Federal prison system is housing the most volatile Federal inmate 
population in history.
  So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The gentleman, I 
am sure, has a legitimate argument to make on the EEOC question. I am 
just saying to my colleagues, this is something we cannot afford to 
take the money from.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, most respectfully to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers], I would urge him to be mindful that the Federal prison system 
had a carryover of $35 million from the 1994 budget and has a $2 
billion budget; and I do not think that that can reasonably be argued 
that they cannot make their requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise as a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission who was able to get rid of the backlog of the commission not 
only through greater efficiency but because the President of the United 
States gave me enough money to do it and said the rest would have to be 
done by efficiency. And we did that.
  Mr. Chairman, I just heard a stark contrast. The gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings] says, give a few dollars to get rid of 
discrimination. The chairman says, no, give a few dollars to put people 
in jail.
  Watch out for the message you send. The message you send is that this 
Congress does not want to devote the money it would take to process 
cases of intentional discrimination but instead refuses to do that and 
says the money has to go to prisons.
  I know what this means in the society at large, and I know what that 
means at EEOC. The agency is under ever so much greater pressure than 
when I was there. There is a whole new complicated statute. We have 
court decisions, the Adarand decision, and we have a level of funding 
that will not allow the job to get done.
  The majority says, what we want to go after is intentional 
discrimination. These are backlog cases of intentional discrimination. 
This is a very difficult agency to run. It is much more like a 
manufacturing agency than a Government agency because you have to put 
out and account what you put out and account what you take in.
  If we do not want to pay the money, if we do not want the money to go 
for antidiscrimination enforcement, then do not be heard to say that 
you are for ending discrimination, because when the time came, when the 
test was before you, you refused to allow the money to go to enforce 
antidiscrimination.
  I thank the gentleman for this amendment. It draws the line. Let us 
ask the Members here today which side of the line are they on.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment.
  We see Members every day run down to the well and say, I believe in a 
color-blind society. If there is discrimination, take it to EEOC. EEOC 
cannot do that job unless we pass this amendment. The bulk of EEOC's 
work involves investigation, processing and resolution of complaints. 
This requires interviewing, reviewing files, not computer work. This 
requires old-fashioned legwork.
  In order to do legwork, you need personnel. But over the past 14 
years, EEOC has experienced a reduction of 500 full-time employees. 
This comes despite a significant increase in responsibility.
  In terms of private-sector complaints, they increase by 47 percent, 
up 29,000 additional charges.
  The Federal sector: Again, up over 7,000 additional charges. More 
complaints, less personnel, it cannot work.
  As a result, each investigator now has 135 cases. Four years ago they 
only had 55. They say, Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied. 
Pass this amendment. Eliminate the backlog. Help EEOC do its job.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] my friend, who 
wished to have been a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of the Hastings 
amendment.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this is about the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission. Equal. This is not about affirmative 
action. This is not about setasides. This is about enforcing the law to 
make sure that people are treated equally in this country. Instead of 
funding the mechanism in our country that is designed to ensure that, 
we have allowed equal employment opportunity to become a joke.
  Three hundred twenty-eight days behind in their processing, 97,000 
cases in backlog, and we say that we want to stand for equality in this 
country.
  I remind my colleagues, this is not about affirmative action. It is 
about equal treatment under the law.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hastings 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hastings amendment to provide 
funds to the 

[[Page H7727]]
EEOC. The EEOC has a backlog of 97,000 cases of alleged discrimination. 
These are hard charges of discrimination in the workplace that need to 
be investigated. The Hastings amendment would provide funds for the 
EEOC to handle these discriminatory claims.
  The facts speak for themselves. Over 95 percent of the top jobs in 
America go to white males, according to the ``Glass Ceiling Report.'' 
It seems to me that some people want a guarantee of 100 percent of 
those jobs by eliminating affirmative action programs.
  It's like my grandmother's sweet-potato pie. Some folks, white males, 
have pretty much had the whole pie to themselves for a very long time. 
Affirmative action has helped minorities get a small slice of that pie.
  Full enforcement of equal employment laws is critical. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Hastings amendment so the EEOC can fully 
pursue discrimination charges.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I think the point that a lot of Members miss on this issue is that in 
the Federal workplace and in the workplace in general, there are many 
people who rely on this agency for their last resort. Their ability to 
deal with the system, to deal with discrimination, to get some relief 
comes from this agency. What the gentleman is trying to do is deal with 
the fact that has been stated here before; the backlog of cases in this 
agency, the inability to process all the cases is really creating a 
very unfair situation.
  This is, as has been stated before, about equality. This is an agency 
and a program that is truly in the best tradition of American 
democracy. Not to support this amendment is really to continue to say 
that equality in this country is not important. If you do not build a 
Federal prison, you can create a slight problem. If you do not give 
someone their due rights in this society, you create a major unfair 
problem.
  This is a good amendment, and every Member should vote for it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank very much the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and his staff and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and his staff 
for being considerate of the circumstances giving rise to this hastily 
drawn but very important measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let me say that I want to, with all fervor and heart, support the 
amendment by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  This is not a time for us to retract and say that this is not a time 
to defend civil rights. This is an opportunity for us to say to all of 
America that we understand the value of passage of the Civil Rights Act 
back in the 1960's, and this is a chance for us to tell all Americans, 
every American, regardless of their race, creed, or color, that it is 
time to increase pressure on all those who might discriminate.
  I do not know if it has been mentioned, but over 100,000 allegations 
of discrimination have been filed with the EEOC over the past several 
years, each year. This is a time to make sure we have a strong, a 
vibrant EEOC. This is a time for us to say that we understand that the 
Federal Government has a role in enforcing our laws against 
discrimination.
  I would hope that, along with the gentleman from Florida, what we do 
is understand that this is a time to recognize that all Americans 
should be treated equally. So I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
supporting the Hastings amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. This country must make a commitment to equal opportunity in 
the job place, and that is what this amendment does.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this amendment, however well 
intentioned, would have a devastating effect on the prison activation 
program that we are entering into for 1996. We have 10 new prison 
facilities that will be ready to open in 1996. This amendment, if it 
passes, will prevent us from opening those facilities.
  We would be at 132 percent of capacity next year. A result of this 
amendment would be that 9,200 more Federal prison beds will be sitting 
vacant and unused and in empty, new or expanded buildings. I do not 
think the Congress wants that to be printed in the newspapers, that is, 
pictures of those empty prisons when we have overcrowding in the 
others.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. If this amendment 
passes, new prisons will not open in Texas, California, and Arkansas; 
expanded prisons will not be allowed to be opened in five other States.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Mr. Hastings.
  Mr. Chairman, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the 
Federal Government's frontline agency in the fight against racial 
discrimination in employment--a fight which I know we all support.
  The amendment before us would increase the appropriation for the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by $35 million--an amount equal 
to the President's request for fiscal year 1996.
  Recent reforms put in place at EEOC, including the use of mediation 
as an alternative for resolving disputes and a new system for 
prioritizing incoming cases, show great promise for reducing the 
tremendous backlog which has built up in recent years.
  And I would here like to thank the Chair of the subcommittee, my good 
friend from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, for his recognition of those reforms 
in the report language for the bill.
  However, additional resources are needed to make those reforms a true 
success. The gentleman from Florida's amendment would fully fund the 
President's budget request for EEOC for fiscal year 1996--and help put 
the teeth back in civil rights enforcement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Hastings amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Hastings 
amendment.
  This amendment would fully fund the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, and provide it with the necessary resources to wage 
wholesale battle on its more than 100,000-case backlog.
  I realize that there are some who contend that we must tear down 
equal opportunity programs as if racial discrimination were ancient 
history.
  And at the same time, they would eliminate every program that holds 
out even the hope of opportunity and equality.
  Sure, there are some businesses that want to do away with the EEOC 
because they think it is a burden, but I am not thinking about the 
businesses. I am thinking about the hard-working men and women who must 
labor day-in and day-our under glass ceilings, and employers who break 
the law and refuse to judge their employees on their abilities as 
opposed to their gender or race. If the EEOC is not there to protect 
these hard-working Americans then who will?
  Discrimination is not an evil of the past. Unfortunately, contrary to 
this Nation's best hopes, today, unlawful employment discrimination is 
a very painful reality. Just look at the 100,000-case backlog.
  As much as we would all like to believe that the problem of 
employment discrimination has been resolved, both the quantity and the 
nature of the charges provide evidence to the contrary.
  In fiscal year 1994, the EEOC received 91,189 new complaints. As of 
the second quarter of fiscal year 1995, the backlog of complaints 
reached 108,106.
  Unfortunately, business is still too good for the EEOC. The agency 
remains as needed, and as relevant today, as it was when Congress 
created it 30 years ago.
  The Hastings amendment says to America, and to this body, that we 
should be opening the door to opportunity, not slamming it shut. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the Hastings amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present. Pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the 

[[Page H7728]]
Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the 
period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, 
will be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. 
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:
                             [Roll No. 576]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1605

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred and three Members have answered to their 
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Hastings] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 321, not voting 29, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 577]

                                AYES--84

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--321

     Allard
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)

[[Page H7729]]

     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Archer
     Bateman
     Blute
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Gekas
     Graham
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hoke
     King
     Livingston
     Manton
     McIntosh
     Moakley
     Neal
     Oxley
     Reynolds
     Stark
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1612

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Stark for, with Mr. Neal against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 577, the Hastings amendment, 
and the previous quorum call, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Hastings amendment.
                              {time}  1613


                amendment no. 13 offered by mr. becerra

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Becerra: Page 59, line 9, strike 
     ``16,400,000'' and insert ``$8,400,000''.
       Page 16, line 5, strike ``$1,421,481,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,429,481,000''.
       Page 17, line 2, before the period insert, ``: Provided 
     further, That $8,000,000 shall be available to promote and 
     expedite naturalization, in accordance with section 332 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act''.

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman of 
the committee and the ranking member for their thoughtfulness as they 
approached this amendment, and try to address the body on this 
particular issue.
  The issue at hand is that of naturalization. Too often when we talk 
about the Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Department 
of Justice, we forget what the ``N'' in INS stands for.
  Naturalization is one of the principal components of the work of the 
INS. Unfortunately, too many people do not see the naturalization 
efforts of the INS.
  Mr. Chairman, by the end of this decade, before we reach the 21st 
century, there will be nearly 11.5 million people in this country who 
will be eligible for U.S. citizenship. Let me give some quick 
information on where we are right now.
  The INS approved during fiscal year 1994 roughly 420,000 applications 
for naturalization, people who wanted to become U.S. citizens. At the 
end of that fiscal year, they had a backlog of 300,000 people wishing 
to become U.S. citizens.
  This fiscal year, the INS estimates that it will have 900,000 people 
who will come through their doors
 applying for citizenship. They estimate that with the current funding 
they have, plus some reprogramming funds from fee accounts that they 
receive of about $22 million, they will be able to process about 
700,000 people.

  Mr. Chairman, fully 200,000 people will be added to the 300,000 
backlog, so we will end up with 500,000 people, half a million people, 
seeking citizenship who have gone through the entire process and are 
still not able to become citizens, after they paid their fees and 
waited their time.
  The amendment I have, Mr. Chairman, is an attempt to try to address 
that major backlog that we have. We are talking about people who in 
some cases have waited 12 to 15 years to enter this country, to get the 
permission to get to this country. People who, once in this country, 
pay every single tax that a citizen does, abide by every single law 
that a citizen does, and in many cases, like citizens, have defended 
this country in time of war, whether the Gulf War or any other theater 
of war. They are on their way to becoming full-fledged American 
citizens, and now we find at this time that we cannot accommodate them.
  This amendment is an effort to try to do just that and help relieve 
the backlog.
  I believe it is important for us to send a message to people who have 
gone through every step the correct way to come into this country, that 
they are entitled to get processed through because they have paid a fee 
to do so. It seems anomalous to me to consider the fact that we have 
hundreds of thousands of people who have said they are willing to 
relinquish their current citizenship and adopt this country fully and 
faithfully, yet we cannot get there because we are unable to get 
through the bureaucracy to get them sworn in.
  For some people to have to wait fully 2 years between submitting 
their fees and their application and actually getting to be sworn in, 
to say, ``I do become a U.S. citizen,'' is abysmal. We must change 
that.
  The money that I am requesting through this amendment, $8 million for 
the INS, would not resolve the whole problem, but it would get us part 
of the way there and help us stay more current with our applications 
and relieve, or at least eliminate a good portion of the backlog, if 
not all the backlog.
  Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I believe this amendment is very 
worthy of consideration.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Pastor] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Gutierrez] the Hispanic Caucus has undertaken an ambitious, nationwide 
program to get more naturalized Americans. As a naturalized American 
myself, I know how important this process can be.
  One of the problems, a serious problem that we have had, is the 
incredible backlog in every major urban center, whether it is Miami, 
Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. Freeing up more money and making sure 
that INS, as the gentleman from California, [Mr. Becerra] points out, 
puts the ``N'' back in INS, is very important to clear up this backlog.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from California for 
highlighting this concern.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying the following: We have 
actually increased the funding for the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service dramatically, and it is about time, because we know we need to 
do more to try to regulate our borders. We know we have to do a better 
job of verifying those who have come into this country with visas and 
ultimately overstay their visas and no longer have the permission to be 
here.
  We have the job to do to make sure that people who are entitled to 
work do work, and those that do not have the authority to work do not. 
We have a lot of things to do, and much of the money that we are 
providing to the INS goes to those areas.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we unfortunately do not do the job that we can, 
and certainly that the INS should do, to try to eliminate the backlog 
of people who say, ``We are ready to become full-fledged participants 
in this American society.''
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is consistent with a great Nation to say 
that we will be there with them to carry them through the process.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has gone a long way to bring 
to the attention of this body, and our subcommittee, the problem that 
exists in the backlog of applications for naturalization at INS. The 
subcommittee, as the gentleman has said, has provided record sums, even 
a record increase in funding for INS, but the funding for the 
naturalization still is low, as the gentleman has pointed out, given 
the backlog that they have.
  The gentleman and other Members, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 

[[Page H7730]]
  Ros-Lehtinen] and others, have pointed out the shortcomings, and the 
subcommittee will be having an opportunity to help the INS solve the 
problem.
  There are reprogramming procedures that the gentleman is aware of 
where we are able to reprogram from one part of INS to another, funding 
for various purposes, and I assure the gentleman that in the next round 
of reprogramming, funds will be provided to stay current and eliminate 
the backlog in naturalization applications; I assure the gentleman of 
that.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] for that assurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Becerra was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for his recognition of this problem, and for 
working with a number of us to try to resolve this.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that there are program accounts which are 
funded through fees, and those funds, with those fees, are subsequently 
allocated by the administration with the approval of Congress.
  Is it the chairman's intention that the next time we have 
reprogramming done by the INS, as they come to the Congress for 
approval of those reprogramming priorities, that we make it clear to 
the INS, and it may be our efforts in Congress, to assure as they 
reprogram those dollars, that it is the intention to eliminate the 
backlog of naturalization applications and stay current with those 
applications for naturalization that are coming in?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time and his 
great efforts on this issue, because I think as most people will 
recognize in this Chamber, anyone who pays for a service is entitled to 
get it. What we are trying to do is accelerate the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope now we have as much cooperation with the 
administration as we have had from the committee on this particular 
matter.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I 
would hope, on that assurance, that the gentleman would withdraw his 
amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.


               amendment no. 48 offered by mr. gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez: Page 17, line 2, before 
     the period insert ``Provided further, That $4,000,000 shall 
     be available to promote the opportunities and 
     responsibilities of United States citizenship with the 
     assistance of appropriate community groups, in accordance 
     with section 332(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act''.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is very 
simple and I believe it should be supported by anyone who believes that 
the Federal Government should do all it can to encourage immigrants to 
our Nation to become citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about using Federal dollars 
efficiently. It is about providing desperately needed community 
outreach and resources to people who want to become U.S. citizens, and 
it is about making an important statement that this Government wants to 
take every action it possibly can to encourage U.S. citizenship.
  My amendment earmarks $4 million in funding to allow appropriate 
community groups to work with the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service to promote the opportunities and responsibilities of United 
States citizenship.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues how this program works. In my 
city of Chicago, our regional INS office cannot possibly keep up with 
the volume of people who desire to become citizens of our great Nation. 
To help try to provide the basic and vital service of naturalizing 
qualified individuals, the office has empowered community groups to 
prepare
 citizenship applications.

  All across my city respected and effective community organizations 
have been approved by the INS office to sponsor and promote citizenship 
workshops. After these workshops, volunteers help eligible applicants 
complete their application forms, take the photos and the fingerprints 
as required by law.
  In many cases, volunteer attorneys double check the applications to 
make certain everything is in order. The community organizations then 
again check the applications for accuracy and turn them into the 
regional INS office for processing.
  This convenient, efficient, and affordable practice has allowed tens 
of thousands of Chicagoans to start on the road to citizenship. It has 
saved hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans lengthy waits in lines at 
regional INS offices, bringing government services right to the 
neighborhoods.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, it is a rare action that the Federal 
Government has taken to actually make its services more efficient; to 
respond effectively to a need; to send a strong message to people that 
Government will solve problems instead of create them.
  How do I know? Because on July 8, Mr. Chairman, the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus sponsored a National Citizenship Day in conjunction 
with NALEO in nine cities. From Houston to New York, from Miami to Los 
Angeles, in 1 day we efficiently and effectively helped more than 9,000 
people start toward citizenship.
  Mr. Chairman, my office alone in Chicago in the last year has handed 
in over 5,000 applications for citizenship and it is a program that 
should be encouraged and expanded. My amendment simply provides the 
resources to the INS to work to expand this program across the country; 
to invest in empowering community groups at the local level who can 
help share the responsibility of an increasing number of citizenship 
applications.
  The vast majority of immigrants come to our Nation looking for 
nothing more than a chance to contribute, a chance to share in the 
freedom and the prosperity that is America. An opportunity one day to 
become full partners in the fight for the American dream by becoming 
American citizens.
                              {time}  1630

  All my amendment does is make it a little bit easier for them to have 
that opportunity. It is not a dramatic amount of money, simply enough 
to expand the modest work already begun. It is reasonable and an 
expenditure that puts this Congress on record as supporting and helping 
in an efficient manner people who want nothing more than to contribute 
to our Nation.
  My friends, we all know these are dangerous days for immigrants in 
our Nation. This body has gone on record in supporting dramatic cuts 
and elimination of services to noncitizens, people who reside in our 
Nation perfectly legally. I emphasize legal, people who are in this 
Nation as all of us are here as Members of Congress today, and I ask my 
friends to help and support in reaching the goals of tens of thousands 
of others who wish to share in the American dream.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to share with our colleagues 
what happened in New York. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Velazquez] and I encourage the people to come to the July 8 citizenship 
day. We set up an 800 number. One thousand people showed up and were 
processed for citizenship, but 29,000 phone calls came in that we were 
able to record.
  Every time 40 phone calls came into the machine, the system closed 
down until we cleared it out, so the estimate is that maybe over 
100,000 people called up.
  Again, to reiterate, people who are here with documents, people who 
are here legally, as we say, people who want to be American citizens, 
we were able to process them on their way to full citizenship.
  I think it is important to support this amendment and to say if we, 
indeed, wish people to follow the law, 

[[Page H7731]]
then what we should be supportive of is this kind of amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, based on the assurances that 
I am prepared to make to him, if he might be willing to withdraw the 
amendment. Let me say this to this gentleman: It is my intent that from 
within funds provided to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
funds be provided to community based organizations to promote the 
opportunities and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship with the 
assistance of appropriate community groups in accordance with section 
332(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and we will work with 
the gentleman to make sure that happens.
  Based on that assurance, I would hope the gentleman would be able to 
withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. If the gentleman would yield, if I could enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman and ask him one question, No. 1, I would 
like to thank the gentleman for working and making those assurances, 
and certainly we are going to be willing to withdraw our amendment.
  I would just like to ask to make sure that community based 
organizations are actually going to
 get dollars so that they can go out and sponsor these workshops and be 
viable in terms of helping, and I say that, and I want to let all the 
Members know that when someone goes to an INS office with an 
application that is badly done, the INS personnel there have to turn 
that back to that individual, wasting dollars and time. When community 
organizations do these events, we have lawyers checking them, doing the 
fingerprinting, and if the INS finds anything wrong, anybody authorized 
by the INS to conduct these workshops, if they find anything wrong, the 
INS sends back the application directly back to the community 
organization and says, ``Fix it,'' ``If you do not get it right, do not 
bring it back to us,'' which I think is very appropriate.

  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made a very 
eloquent case and need not make it further.
  It is my intent, as the gentleman requested, that we will work with 
the gentleman to see that funds are provided.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that following the closure of the border 
patrol checkpoints at San Clemente and Temecula, CA, approximately $7.5 
million will be available for INS border and infrastructure 
improvements, subject to approval by your committee.
  I would request that, in the course of evaluating proposals for this 
funding, that you would consider using the funding for construction of 
fencing along the border area in San Diego. The comprehensive 
immigration reform legislation that is now pending before the Committee 
on the Judiciary, that is, H.R. 1915, includes the authorization for an 
additional border fencing project and road improvements in the San 
Diego sector, and this would augment our program increases for border 
security and the enforcement of our immigration laws.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is one of the champions of border 
protection and has done more than anyone that I am aware of in this 
body to protect the borders of our country, and I am aware that the 
construction of barriers at certain points along our southern border 
has greatly enhanced the operations of the border patrol.
  I will work with the Commissioner of the INS and the gentleman in 
securing funding for those projects.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. We owe him a debt of gratitude for 
the increases he has made in border enhancement, and the gentleman from 
West Virginia.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
work for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the 
importance of a program, the community-based justice grant program, 
which was contained in last year's crime bill, which has been a part of 
the local law enforcement block grant.
  This is a very, very impressive program that was initiated by the 
district attorney in Middlesex County, MA, Tom Riley.
  Several years ago I went up to Lowell, MA, on a hot summer day. In 
the morning I met with over 100 residents of the city of Lowell, MA, 
who were meeting with five young top police officers. This was a 
tremendous program where 100 residents of the city of Lowell, MA, got 
together with five young police officers from the Lowell department 
with a couple of young prosecutors and identified some of the worst 
violent criminals in the city of Lowell. They went after these 
criminals in a way that was unprecedented and, as a result, we saw the 
crime rate in Lowell, MA, drop by 50 percent.
  Last year, for the first time in scores of years, we saw the crime 
rate drop to its lowest point. There was not a single murder committed 
in Lowell, MA, last year.
  We expanded the program into Somerville, MA, Malden, MA, a range of 
other cities and towns throughout the State. In each case the crime 
rate was dropped in half or better as a result of the people taking the 
streets back, working hand in glove with the local police department 
and taking the time to identify specific criminals that were 
perpetrating violent crimes against others. If they think there are 
drugs being dealt in at a particular apartment, they tell the local 
prosecutor, tell the police officers, and work together to eliminate 
and eradicate those individuals that are responsible for these crimes. 
It really is a tremendous program.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Lowell, MA [Mr. Meehan], who was a prosecutor in that 
program and did some fine work in bringing many of the criminals to 
justice as well.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy]. No doubt I was probably one of those young prosecutors 
before I got down here and became an old Member of Congress.
  In any event, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
for his efforts over the years in this program.
  The tremendous thing about this program is not only does it identify 
those worst offenders and have the community identify those worst 
offenders and remove them from society, but once those individuals are 
removed, there is a program in place where the police officers coach 
soccer leagues and football leagues and work with the rest of the 
communities so they get kids headed in the right direction. They opened 
up gymnasiums, opened up the schools. That is a program that is working 
extremely effectively.
  I think when the Justice Department looks for a model in terms of 
community-based prosecution, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] said, they have to look no further than Lowell, MA, and 
Somerville, MA, as well. This program has been implemented there.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for his 
efforts. I think this is extremely important.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just would hope that 
you might encourage people under this block grant. I know that in the 
past we have been able to set aside some funds for this program under 
the new leadership that has been determined to make decisions at the 
local level. I hope you would join with me in encouraging police 
departments and prosecutors from around the country to apply for the 

[[Page H7732]]
funds that are available under this program because of the tremendous 
successes it has had.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I want to compliment the gentleman for bringing to our 
attention the efforts that are ongoing in your State.
  As an old State prosecutor, I can appreciate very much the efficacy 
of what they are doing there. I support the type of efforts at the 
local level you have mentioned to control crime and certainly would 
encourage local communities to use block grant funds that are in this 
bill to fund efforts of this type, and would join the gentleman in 
encouraging your communities as well as others across the country to 
get those block grant applications in at the appropriate time to fund 
this type of activity.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, in 
the report language for H.R. 2076, there is a section entitled ``State 
and local enforcement assistance,'' under which grants are provided for 
the Edward Byrne Memorial State and local law enforcement assistance 
programs.
  In that report language, Mr. Chairman, it states this:

       The committee also encourages the attorney general to 
     provide grants to public or private agencies and private 
     nonprofit organizations for advanced education and training 
     of criminal justice personnel and to provide educational 
     assistance to students who possess a sincere interest in 
     public service law enforcement. The committee expects the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance to submit a report to the 
     committee on its intentions for this proposal by November 15, 
     1995.

  Now, based on our previous conversations, mine with you, Mr. 
Chairman, it is my understanding that the intent of this language was 
to strongly urge the Department of Justice to provide a portion of the 
funding in the Byrne Grant Program to fund State and local police corps 
programs as well as State and local law enforcement scholarship 
programs as previously authorized by Congress in the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
  Am I correct in this assessment, sir?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. As I 
have stated to the gentleman previously, it is my intention to strongly 
urge that the Attorney General use a portion of the Byrne Grant Funding 
Program for the purposes that you have described.
  Mr. DORNAN. Excellent. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] for 
bringing this to our attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $20,949,000, of which $2,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                     International Trade Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $42,500,000, to remain available until expended.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for 
     dependent members of immediate families of employees 
     stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas; 
     travel and transportation of employees of the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad, 
     without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and 
     aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for 
     periods not exceeding ten years, and expenses of alteration, 
     repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle; 
     obtain insurance on official motor vehicles; and rent tie 
     lines and teletype equipment; $264,885,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the provisions of 
     the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 
     108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying 
     out these activities without regard to 15 U.S.C. 4912; and 
     that for the purpose of this Act, contributions under the 
     provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act shall include payment for assessments for services 
     provided as part of these activities.

                         Export Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; rental 
     of space abroad for periods not exceeding ten years, and 
     expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law; 
     $38,644,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) 
     and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) 
     shall apply in carrying out these activities.

                  Economic Development Administration


                Economic Development Assistance Programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, Public Law 91-304, and such laws that were in effect 
     immediately before September 30, 1982, and for trade 
     adjustment assistance, $328,500,000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this 
     heading may be used directly or indirectly for attorneys' or 
     consultants' fees in connection with securing grants and 
     contracts made by the Economic Development Administration: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of Commerce may provide financial 
     assistance for projects to be located on military 
     installations closed or scheduled for closure or realignment 
     to grantees eligible for assistance under the Public Works 
     and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, without it 
     being required that the grantee have title or ability to 
     obtain a lease for the property, for the useful life of the 
     project, when in the opinion of the Secretary of Commerce, 
     such financial assistance is necessary for the economic 
     development of the area: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Commerce may, as the Secretary considers appropriate, 
     consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding the title to 
     land on military installations closed or scheduled for 
     closure or realignment.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $20,000,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community Emergency 
     Drought Relief Act of 1977.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     Minority Business Development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $32,000,000.

            United States Travel and Tourism Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Travel and 
     Tourism Administration 

[[Page H7733]]
     for participation in the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, 
     $2,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 1995: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     paragraph shall be available to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203(a) of the International Travel Act of 1961, as 
     amended.

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $40,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1997.


         Economics and Statistics Administration Revolving Fund

       The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to disseminate 
     economic and statistical data products as authorized by 15 
     U.S.C. 1525-1527 and, notwithstanding 15 U.S.C. 4912, charge 
     fees necessary to recover the full costs incurred in their 
     production. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, receipts received 
     from these data dissemination activities shall be credited to 
     this account, to be available for carrying out these purposes 
     without further appropriation.

                          Bureau of the Census


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $136,000,000.


                     Periodic Censuses and Programs

       For expenses necessary to collect and publish statistics 
     for periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $135,000,000, to remain available until expended.

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
     $19,709,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the Secretary of 
     Commerce is authorized to retain and use as offsetting 
     collections all funds transferred, or previously transferred, 
     from other Government agencies for all costs incurred in 
     telecommunications research, engineering, and related 
     activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of 
     the NTIA in furtherance of its assigned functions under this 
     paragraph and such funds received from other Government 
     agencies shall remain available until expended.


       Public Broadcasting Facilities, Planning and Construction

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, $19,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,200,000 shall be 
     available for program administration as authorized by section 
     391 of the Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 391 of the Act, the prior year 
     unobligated balances may be made available for grants for 
     projects for which applications have been submitted and 
     approved during any fiscal year.


                   Information Infrastructure Grants

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, $40,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be 
     available for program administration and other support 
     activities as authorized by section 391 of the Act including 
     support of the Advisory Council on National Information 
     Infrastructure: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 percent may be available 
     for telecommunications research activities for projects 
     related directly to the development of a national information 
     infrastructure: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     requirements of section 392(a) and 392(c) of the Act, these 
     funds may be used for the planning and construction of 
     telecommunications networks for the provision of educational, 
     cultural, health care, public information, public safety or 
     other social services.

                      Patent and Trademark Office


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office 
     provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted 
     against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the funds made available under this heading are to be 
     derived from deposits in the Patent and Trademark Office Fee 
     Surcharge Fund as authorized by law: Provided further, That 
     the amounts made available under the Fund shall not exceed 
     amounts deposited; and such fees as shall be collected 
     pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, shall 
     remain available until expended.

                         Science and Technology

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


             Scientific and Technical Research and Services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, $263,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $8,500,000 may be 
     transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.


                     Industrial Technology Services

       For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, $81,100,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which not to exceed $500,000 may be transferred to the 
     ``Working Capital Fund'': Provided, That none of the funds 
     made available under this heading in this or any other Act 
     may be used for the purposes of carrying out additional 
     program competitions under the Advanced Technology Program: 
     Provided further, That any unobligated balances available 
     from carryover of prior year appropriations under the 
     Advanced Technology Program may be used only for the purposes 
     of providing continuation grants.


                  Construction of Research Facilities

       For construction of new research facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering design, and for renovation of 
     existing facilities, not otherwise provided for the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, as authorized by 15 
     U.S.C. 278c-278e, $60,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  Operations, Research, and Facilities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including acquisition, maintenance, operation, and hire of 
     aircraft; not to exceed 386 commissioned officers on the 
     active list; grants, contracts, or other payments to 
     nonprofit organizations for the purposes of conducting 
     activities pursuant to cooperative agreements; and 
     alteration, modernization, and relocation of facilities as 
     authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i; $1,690,452,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302 but consistent with other existing law, fees 
     shall be assessed, collected, and credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections to be available until 
     expended, to recover the costs of administering aeronautical 
     charting programs: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as such 
     additional fees are received during fiscal year 1996, so as 
     to result in a final general fund appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $1,687,452,000: Provided further, That any such 
     additional fees received in excess of $3,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996 shall not be available for obligation until October 
     1, 1996: Provided further, That fees and donations received 
     by the National Ocean Service for the management of the 
     national marine sanctuaries may be retained and used for the 
     salaries and expenses associated with those activities, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That in 
     addition, $55,500,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and 
     Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided 
     further, That grants to States pursuant to sections 306 and 
     306(a) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, shall 
     not exceed $2,000,000.


                      Coastal Zone Management Fund

       Of amounts collected pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1456a, not to 
     exceed $7,800,000, for purposes set forth in 16 U.S.C. 
     1456a(b)(2)(A), 16 U.S.C. 1456a(b)(2)(B)(v), and 16 U.S.C. 
     1461(c).


                              Construction

       For repair and modification of, and additions to, existing 
     facilities and construction of new facilities, and for 
     facility planning and design and land acquisition not 
     otherwise provided for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, $42,731,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


            Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding and Conversion

       For expenses necessary for the repair, acquisition, 
     leasing, or conversion of vessels, including related 
     equipment to maintain and modernize the existing fleet and to 
     continue planning the modernization of the fleet, for the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $20,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


            Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund

       For carrying out the provisions of section 3 of Public Law 
     95-376, not to exceed $1,032,000, to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1980 (b) and (f), to remain 
     available until expended.


                      Fishermen's Contingency Fund

       For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law 
     95-372, not to exceed $999,000, to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until 
     expended.


                     Foreign Fishing Observer Fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law 
     96-339), the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627) and the American 
     Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), there are 
     appropriated from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery 
     observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed 
     $196,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Technology Administration

       Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $5,000,000.
     
[[Page H7734]]


                         General Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $29,100,000.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $21,849,000.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce

       Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary that such payments 
     are in the public interest.
       Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902).
       Sec. 203. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and 
     activities that are under the control of the United States 
     Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds provided in this or any 
     previous Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department 
     of Commerce shall be available to reimburse the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund or any other fund or account of the Treasury to 
     pay for any expenses paid before October 1, 1992, as 
     authorized by section 8501 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for services performed after April 20, 1990, by individuals 
     appointed to temporary positions within the Bureau of the 
     Census for purposes relating to the 1990 decennial census of 
     population.
       Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title II?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As I was saying in title I and now in title II, I had been prepared 
to offer an amendment to this title of the measure which would have, in 
effect, cut the funding for the general administration of the 
Department of Commerce by 25 percent, the objective being, in effect, 
to indicate that the first three-quarters of next year of the 
Department of Commerce would be funded, but the last quarter would not, 
contemplating the dissolution of the Department of Commerce by that 
time.
   Mr. Chairman, the department serves a number of important functions, 
but I believe any of these functions, any of these functions can be 
performed just as well or perhaps better in the private sector or the 
State or local level or elsewhere in the Federal Government. Those 
functions that are unnecessary should be terminated.
  I think we would all agree the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
Subcommittee has already eliminated funding for the U.S. Travel and 
Tourism Administration and the Advanced Technology Program. I would 
like to see us go the next step forward, which is to have all 
committees with jurisdiction over this department work on an expedited 
basis to find an appropriate home for necessary Commerce Department 
programs, eliminate those that are not necessary, and ultimately 
abolish the Department, and this we can do within the reconciliation 
process.
  Functions of the Commerce Department overlap with 71 agencies and 60 
percent of the agency is not focused on trade or commerce, which, in my 
view, should be the focus of the Department.
 It is instead devoted to NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, which is 60 percent of the funding and the manpower of 
the department. Responsibility for the trade functions of the 
department are spread out among multiple undersecretaries, assistant 
secretaries and others.

                              {time}  1645

  Clearly, Mr. Chairman, there is room to preserve and improve the 
central functions of government without maintaining the sprawling 
bureaucracy of the Department of Commerce. It is my view that because 
it is so diverse, running from the prior administration to the patent 
office, NOAA and all the rest of it, that the principal focus, which 
should be on the trade mission and promoting U.S. trade, both at home 
and abroad, it does not get the attention that it really deserves in 
this huge, loaded bureaucracy.
  So Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment today, as I have 
confidence that we can work, and are working, on a very regular and 
expedited basis with the authorizing committees, of which there are 
many, to effect a timely dismantling of this department through the 
reconciliation process.
  I would urge my colleagues to support these efforts.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for final passage of the 
appropriations bill because this is the beginning of the end of the 
Department of Commerce. Yes, the bill could have gone further and more 
programs could be eliminated outright, yet this will be done in 
cooperation, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] just 
stated, with all of the relevant authorizing committees as part of the 
reconciliation process in moving forward.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Commerce cannot and should not be 
eliminated in one appropriations bill. We must craft responsible 
legislation to do certain things. Privatize certain functions, localize 
certain functions back to State and local government. Consolidate 
certain functions within the Federal Government and eliminate some 
outright from the Department of Commerce.
  While we speak, authorizing committees are moving to construct 
legislation to do just this. We have received solid commitments and 
firm commitments from the leadership and from the authorizing 
committees to move this package forward aggressively this year.
  Mr. Chairman, our goal of improving commerce in our vast and diverse 
Nation will not be accomplished by a centralized bureaucracy. We do not 
promote commerce by erecting crippling taxes and a regulatory maze that 
you need a cabinet and department level to break through. I think we 
promote it by free enterprise.
  A recent Business Week poll of executives illustrated their support 
of eliminating the Department of Commerce by calling for its 
elimination by a vote of two-to-one. The American people have spoken. 
They want a smaller, more limited, more focused Federal Government. I 
urge my colleagues to work with the authorizing committees to eliminate 
the Department of Commerce this year.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for 
yielding. I also thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for his 
work in not funding many of these agencies within the Department of 
Commerce, and I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] on his efforts for 21st century government to give us less 
government and lower taxes and letting people keep more of what they 
earn and save.
  Mr. Chairman, I too intend to vote for final passage of this 
appropriation bill. As the gentleman from Kansas has said, we have 
received assurances from the speaker and the majority leader that the 
Department of Commerce will be dismantled as part of this year's budget 
reconciliation package.
  Our task force study on the Department of Commerce found that all but 
3 of the 100 programs in Commerce are duplicated someplace else within 
the Federal Government and/or by the private sector. Here is what the 
business community says about the Department of Commerce: Just a few 
weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal carried a story reporting that 
business sheds few tears over the calls for the department's 
elimination.

[[Page H7735]]

  A recent Journal of Commerce headline declared the Commerce 
Department seen less vital than deficit cut. Business support wanes for 
the agency.
  From my own experience in my business of over 1,200 employees, in 
doing business in 52 countries around the world, not once did we call 
for help from the Department of Commerce and/or did they call us. 
American businesses would be much better served if the Federal efforts 
were focused on cutting taxes and enacting regulatory and tort reform, 
and most importantly, balancing the Federal budget. Yet the voice of 
business, the Department of Commerce, remains notably silent on all of 
these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, by dismantling the Department of Commerce, not only 
will we be creating a more efficient and effective Federal Government, 
we will be saving taxpayers $8 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we will look forward to working with the authorizing 
committees to put the Department of Commerce out of business.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with the 
appropriate authorizing committees and thank very much the 
appropriating committee for working with us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Are there amendments to title 
II?


                   amendment offered by mr. mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 44, line 4, 
     strike ``$1,690,452,000'' and insert ``$1,752,652,000''.
       On page 44, line 14, strike ``$1,687,452,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,749,652,000'' .
       On page 43, line 16, strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.
       On page 45, line 14, strike ``$42,731,000'' and insert 
     ``$32,731,000''.
       On page 51, line 4, strike ``$2,411,024,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,388,824,000''
       On page 57, line 4, strike ``$1,716,878,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,706,878,000''.
       On page 59, line 3, strike ``$363,276,000'' and insert 
     ``$353,276,000''.


   amendment offered by mr. rogers as a substitute for the amendment 
                        offered by mr. mollohan

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 44, line 4, strike 
     ``$1,690,452,000'' and insert ``$1,724,452,000''
       On page 44, line 14, strike ``$1,687,452,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,721,452,000''
       On page 45, line 23, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,000,000''
       On page 62, line 7, strike ``$870,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$858,000,000''
       On page 42, line 6, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
the Mollohan amendment, my substitute amendment, and all amendments 
thereto close in 20 minutes and the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes in support of his substitute, and the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be recognized for 10 
minutes in support of his amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment adds $34 million to the NOAA 
programs, of great interest to Members from coastal areas of the United 
States and to Members from the Great Lakes region of the country.
  The programs are as follows: We add $20 million to the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, an increase of $20 million; the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Labs, an increase of $4 million; the Coastal 
Ocean Science Program, authorized by the House Committee on Science, an 
additional $5 million; and the Coastal Zone Management Program, an 
increase of $5 million.
  The purpose of this substitute is to address concerns raised by a 
number of Members about coastal and fisheries programs. This substitute 
is paid for by three offsets. One, it reduces the NOAA Fleet 
Modernization Program by $12 million; two, it reduces contributions to 
international organizations by $12 million; and three, it reduces the 
Patent and Trademark Office by $10 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a compromise to the Mollohan 
amendment, which would have, in my opinion, made a number of unwise 
choices in the bill; namely, cutting the judicial system funding to 
offset increases in the Commerce Department.
  We realize how important fisheries, and coastal programs are to many 
of our Members. We also realize how important it is that we balance the 
competing priorities and important programs in this bill. Adjustments 
may be necessary as we proceed to conference on the bill. But I assure 
my colleagues that we will work diligently to address the concerns of 
all Members to the best of our ability.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the compromise agreement to restore $34 
million to programs under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. Mr. Chairman, this compromise will be completely 
offset. Specifically, this compromise would add $20 million to 
important programs under NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. It 
would restore funding for the popular Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Laboratory, and increase funding by $5 million for the Coastal 
Zone Management grants. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it would add $5 million 
for the Coastal Ocean Program.
  Mr. Chairman, NOAA's fishery and coastal ocean programs have 
traditionally been underfunded and they took really painful cuts in 
this year's bill. Restoring the programs to the levels that these 
numbers reflect will prevent the deterioration of vital national 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to all of those who have 
supported our efforts with regard to my original amendment. Also, I 
would like to express appreciation to the chairman for his 
accommodation in reaching a compromise which is reflected in his 
substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for working out this 
substitute. I think that they have helped strengthen and improve the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, although it still funds the NOAA discretionary programs 
above the level of H.R. 1815, our authorization bill, it does track 
H.R. 1815 to a much greater extent than previously. The substitute 
funds the Coastal Ocean Program at $5 million, which H.R. 1815 
authorizes. It reduces the funding for the fleet modernization account 
which was eliminated in H.R. 1815. This reduction is consistent with 
the support of the Committee on Science for privatizing the NOAA Fleet 
and eliminating the NOAA Corps.
  The substitute is also notable for what it does not do. It does not 
reduce NIST construction funding, allowing the people at NIST to move 
forward with the programs that they need to have to upgrade and 
modernize those laboratories. It does not endanger the National Weather 
Service modernization. That would also have been tragic, to move 
forward on something that would undercut our ability to do the next 
generation of weather radar.
  I support the substitute of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
and encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for that measure.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the 

[[Page H7736]]
distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1995 levels of funding of two very 
important programs are not being fully funded in this bill. I assume 
that with the restoration of some of the funds in the substitute 
amendment, which is now pending, that these two programs will have a 
chance to survive. These are two essential programs for the saving of 
the Hawaiian Monk Seal Program and the Hawaiian Sea Turtle Program.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a tremendous possibility that if the programs 
are not funded, that these species will actually go extinct, and it 
will be a tremendous loss, not just to Hawaii, but to the whole world. 
These two species do not occur anywhere else on this planet, and it is 
extremely important that this 15-year program be funded and be 
continued and not be sacrificed, because without the support of the 
National Government in this effort, these two species will likely 
disappear.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to restore funding for 
Hawaiian monk seal and Hawaiian sea turtle recovery programs, which 
have for the last 15 years worked to assure that these valuable species 
would not be doomed to extinction. My amendment asks a mere $760,500 to 
maintain these severely underfunded programs at fiscal year 1995 
levels--$520,500 for the Hawaiian Monk Seal Program and $240,000 for 
the Hawaiian Sea Turtle Program. Discontinuation of these programs at 
this point would mark a shameful waste of substantial Federal 
investment in these species and lead to their irreversible 
disappearance from Hawaii's marine ecosystems.
  These funds are desperately needed to assist my State of Hawaii as it 
suffers the effects of a devastating endangered species crisis. Despite 
the fact that in land area, the Hawaiian Islands make up a mere 0.2 
percent of the United States, an overwhelming 21 percent of listed 
endangered and threatened species and 18 percent of candidate species 
in the United States are Hawaiian species. The majority of these are 
indigenous only to Hawaii--once these species go extinct, they will 
never exist on this earth again.
  The Hawaiian monk seal and Hawaiian sea turtle are two of the State's 
species in extremely precarious positions. Decades of polluted runoff 
and ocean discharges have harmed Hawaii's coastal waters and made 13 
percent of the shoreline unhealthy habitat for marine life. Highly 
trafficked areas in Hawaiian waters constantly traversed by cruise 
ships, glass bottom boats, scuba diving tours, jet skis, snorklers, 
kayakers, surfers, and other popular ocean activities have disrupted 
many areas around the islands. Longline, net and other types of fishing 
have further produced unfriendly territory for many marine species. 
These human disturbances have plagued the monk seal and sea turtle.
  The Hawaiian monk seal, after facing tragic decline for more than 50 
years, has come to be designated the most endangered marine mammal 
within U.S. waters. This 50-million-year-old species can only be found 
within the Hawaiian Islands and half of its numbers have vanished since 
the 1950's. In 1976, the animal was listed as depleted under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act and as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act. Hawaiian monk seal recovery programs were finally initiated in the 
1980's, and critical habitat was designated in 1988 from beaches to a 
depth of 20 fathoms around breeding islands and Maro Reef.
  Because of these crucial rehabilitation and recovery programs put 
into place by the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], the decline 
of the Hawaiian monk seal has slowed to 5 percent a year. The animal 
can be found in discrete populations at eight locations in the 
northwestern Hawaiian Island chain, and in rare birth sightings within 
the main Hawaiian Islands. Single births have occurred on the Island of 
Kauai in 1988 and 1991 and the Island of Oahu in 1991.
  Only three types of monk seals have ever been known to exist during 
the Earth's history. The Caribbean monk seal vanished during this 
century. The Mediterranean monk seal lies on the verge of extinction 
with only 250 to 300 animals remaining. The Hawaiian monk seal clearly 
has the best chances at survival with approximately 1,300 animals 
remaining, according to environmental group Earthtrust. The Federal 
recovery program for the Hawaiian monk seal could be the last effort 
worldwide to save the monk seal.
  Major causes of mortality specific to the Hawaiian monk seal include 
predation by tiger sharks, fatal entanglement in marine debris, 
parasites, heart anomalies, and ciguatera poisoning. In incidents 
termed ``mobbing,'' groups of adult male seals are seen to kill adult 
females at breeding islands where the number of adult males is 
significantly greater than the number of adult females. NMFS has worked 
to monitor monk seals populations for patterns of reproduction, 
survival, number of seals at sites, causes of injury, and death and 
behavior. Undersized female pups have been rehabilitated for release 
into the wild. NMFS removes debris from island beaches and releases 
seals trapped in debris. Seals are also translocated to stabilize adult 
sex ratios to decrease mobbing. It is essential that Hawaiian monk seal 
research and management programs are allowed to continue to assure the 
survival and success of this rate and unique animal.
  The status of threatened and endangered Hawaiian sea turtles is also 
perilous. Of the world's seven sea turtle species, five can be found in 
Hawaiian waters. Of these, the hawksbill and green sea turtles are seen 
most frequently and found to nest in Hawaii. NMFS efforts have centered 
around the green sea turtle, which nests almost exclusively in the 
northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In 1993, 400 to 500 turtles were 
recorded nesting at the French Frigate Shoals.
  Federal research dollars have worked to combat the spread of the 
deadly fibro- papilloma disease, which had become a worldwide problem. 
This untreatable disease, which has no known cause, produces fatal 
tumors that interfere with the animals' ability to move, feed, and see. 
Recent research has shown that the tumors may be viral in origin, 
opening up the possibility for inoculation against the disease. Without 
continuation of this research, sea turtles in Hawaii, Florida, and 
worldwide will be stricken with this rapidly spreading disease.
  Hooking mortality has been another major threat to the Hawaiian sea 
turtle. Many animals drown due to entanglement in gill nets set for fin 
fish and lobster, and death or amputation of flippers due to 
entanglement in fishing line is a common tragic occurrence, according 
to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. NMFS programs have worked to 
save these precious animals from being fatally snared in fishing nets 
and lines, and from ingestion of plastic debris.
  Alteration and destruction of sea turtle habitat has encompassed a 
wide range of specific problems, including vehicle traffic on nesting 
beaches which has crushed eggs and emerging hatchlings. Hatchlings have 
been distracted by beach fires and lighting, stranding them or 
otherwise drawing them away from the ocean. Erosion, siltation, and 
vegetation changes have made it impossible in certain nesting areas for 
turtles to dig nests. Predation in the sea by tiger sharks and on land 
by mongooses and feral cats has also led to a reduction in several 
turtle populations. Federal research to track these threats and to 
study population dynamics of Hawaiian sea turtles species must be 
maintained for effective mitigation of dangers facing these animals.
  My amendment seeks to restore a small amount of funding to continue a 
meaningful Federal commitment to two dwindling species. The State of 
Hawaii's endangered species crisis cannot be ignored because it in turn 
affects all coexisting ecosystems and each species is eliminated. 
Termination of Federal programs for the Hawaiian monk seal and Hawaiian 
sea turtle would cause the rapid deterioration and eventual extinction 
of these species. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which 
ventures to restore a small amount of this entire appropriation bill we 
are debating today to save these priceless species from tragic 
extinction.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
  (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and support his substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I say ``Thank You'' because I had planned to offer an 
amendment with Congressman Quinn to the bill that addressed funding for 
the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab. We approached the committee 
staff with our case and Chairman Rogers' amendment addresses our 
concerns and saves from extinction this most valuable of scientific 
centers.
  The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab is a fact-finding and 
fact-interpreting agency. It helps the Federal 

[[Page H7737]]
Government meet its scientific, ecosystem, and management 
responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with 
Canada. This responsibility spans 8 States, two provinces, and contains 
a 1,000-mile international border. The loss of the research lab would 
put these responsibilities in severe jeopardy.
  The GLERL has recently completed studies in Lake Erie to help figure 
the role of wetlands in reducing the effects of nutrient inputs from 
non-point agricultural sources. This information will help farmers 
develop coherent, nonregulatory pollution control.
  So far, GLERL work has saved billions of dollars. Its nutrient 
dynamics and modeling work contributed to saving more than $10 billion 
dollars of ineffective additional sewage treatment. The present GLERL 
appropriations level is $5.6 million per year; these savings are 
equivalent to over 1,000 years of GLERL funding.
  The research lab's expertise and research related to contaminated 
sediments were key to the findings and recommendations of a scientific 
panel, led by GLERL scientists, that the Coast Guard relax their 
proposed regulations, thus saving the shipping industry tens of 
millions of dollars in lost time and additional costs.
  The GLERL also helps saves lives. GLERL's Great Lakes Atmospheric 
Wave Model gives local emergency preparedness agencies the ability to 
make advanced predictions of shoreline flooding caused by storm surges. 
GLERL's research will give property owners and industries time to 
protect their property and evacuate to higher ground.
  GLERL's PATHFINDER model for oil/chemical spill trajectory is used by 
NOAA on the Great Lakes for spill response and by the Coast Guard to 
help guide search and rescue operations.
  When zebra mussels clogged the water intakes in Monroe, MI, and cut 
off drinking water supplies, GLERL went to work to determine not only 
how to control zebra mussels, but how to keep them clear of vital water 
lines.
  When the people of Milwaukee became sick--and some died--from 
contaminated drinking water, GLERL began an intensive search to 
understand near-shore water conditions which will help prevent future 
health catastrophe caused by drinking water contamination.
  The United States is tremendously lucky to have the Great Lakes, 
which account for 20 percent of the world's fresh water surface. A 
vital link in the competitiveness of the Great Lakes region are the 
Great Lakes themselves--a system of five lakes which connects our 
breadbasket and heavy industries to other destinations across the 
globe.
  The Great Lakes are key to our past, and they are key to our future. 
The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab is a multifaceted lab that 
provides a great and vital service. I urge my colleagues to support 
this measure.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], who knows an 
awful lot about this issue.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the time. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and I can tell from his 
expression a moment ago the best way to do that would be to sit down. I 
want to thank him and the gentleman from West Virginia. These are 
modest programs, but they are immensely important to the coastal 
regions of this country, and I think sometimes that those who talk 
fairly glibly about eliminating this department ignore the fact that 
this part of it is crucially important. In fact, it is over half of the 
budget, NOAA is, and for the living marine resources of the country, 
for the stressed coastal areas and the stressed commercial fisheries, 
this compromise is very, very welcome. So I thank both gentlemen for 
being willing to work it out.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the compromise 
amendment, which increases funding for Coastal Zone Management 
programs.
  Coastal Zone Management is critical and vital to both the environment 
and the economy of shoreline States such as my home State of 
Connecticut. Thanks to this program we have restored over 1,500 acres 
of the State's critical tidal wetlands, and 10 miles of new public 
access has been added along the shores of the Long Island Sound. From 
1991 to 1993 the number of beach closings along Long Island Sound in 
Connecticut was reduced from 292 to 174. Still, much remains to be 
done. More than 25 percent of Long Island Sound's beaches are 
chronically closed due to pathogen contamination.
  Coastal Zone Management State grants are not a Federal give away. 
Federal funds are met with a dollar for dollar state match. These are 
exactly the kind of government partnerships that we should be 
encouraging. They are economically and environmentally sound.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the 
amendment and for protecting America's coastal resources.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the compromise 
amendment to restore crucial funding to NOAA, and in particular, the 
Coastal Zone Management Program.
  President Nixon signed the Coastal Zone Management Act into law in 
1972 and since then it's been remarkably successful in achieving the 
dual goals of environmental protection and economic development.
  This is a voluntary program that allows states which choose to 
participate to establish their own programs based upon their own needs. 
The fact that 34 out of 35 eligible States have chosen to participate 
in CZMA is a testament to the program's overall success. Indeed, this 
Federal partnership with the States has encouraged coastal-dependent 
industries, enhanced commercial, recreational, scientific, and 
educational uses of marine resources, and protected natural and scenic 
treasures.
  Why is this program so important? Almost 50 percent of our country's 
population lives along our coasts and 80 percent live and work within 
50 miles of our coasts. Of course, millions more visit our beautiful 
coasts each year. These growing numbers generate competing demands for 
coastal resources and create an increasing need for coastal management.
  The Federal matching grants from the Coastal Zone Management Program 
are critical for allowing local coastal managers to continue doing the 
jobs they do so well.
  Retreating from our Federal commitment to the coasts will not make 
coastal problems or coastal needs go away. It will just saddle cash-
strapped state an local governments with more of the responsibility.
  What does this mean? It means less protection for our beaches, 
environmentally sensitive habitats, and wetlands. All of these are 
critical to the fishing, tourism, and recreation industries which 
together contribute more than $50 billion to our economy and support 
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  It means less money for flood control and natural disaster 
protection. In short, it means a lower quality of life for the growing 
numbers of people who choose to live, work and visit our coastal areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to have one of the most beautiful sections of 
coastline in my district and I want it to remain that way so that my 
grandchildren can enjoy it as much as I do.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise also today in strong support of 
this compromise amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to represent 140 miles of coast in 
Marin and Sonoma Counties, CA, the two counties north of San Francisco, 
across the Golden Gate Bridge. Each year visitors come to see one of 
our Nation's most picturesque scences, our coast. It is 

[[Page H7738]]
hard for these visitors to imagine that there are troubled waters off 
our coast, Mr. Chairman, but there are. Extensive recreation and 
commercial use takes a serious toll on our coast. This toll threatens 
the health of our marine resources and our coastal economies.
  If California's coast is to be utilized by future generations as it 
is today, it must have strong protection now. Funding for the coastal 
zone program will help provide that protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take our commitment to the 
national marine sanctuary and the coastal zone management programs 
seriously. Please join with me in fighting for the future well-being of 
our coastal waters; our coastal economies; and the Nation as a whole. 
Vote ``yes'' on this compromise amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], who has been extremely interested 
in these issues.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to Members of this body 
that this is a very, very important issue to the coastal States of the 
United States. This issue affects how we manage where the land mass of 
the United States meets the water mass of the United States. That is a 
very delicate zone in this country, and the fact is 80 percent of 
Americans live and work within 50 miles of a coastline. So all of the 
pressures of on-land meet the pressures of off-land, and that very 
fragile area needs special attention, and that is what this budget 
does. Frankly I wish we had restored more. We restored $20 million and 
a $37 million cut, so they are going to get less money, and in the NMFS 
budget, that was a 20 million of 37, and in the coastal zone management 
budget, restored $5 million of a $9.5 million cut. So there is still a 
substantial cut, and I just want to support the compromise, but I want 
to point out that this is such an important area, important issues to 
all Americans, that we need to pay attention to these fundings and hope 
in a subsequent amendment that my colleagues will also support an 
increase in the sanctuaries.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, The Great Lakes are home to 25 million 
people and some of the most productive cities and agricultural areas of 
our Nation.
  The Great Lakes contain 20 percent of the world's--20 percent--fresh 
surface water, and they contain 95 percent of the fresh surface water 
in the United States. The Great Lakes supply drinking water, fish, and 
other food to millions of Americans.
  A vital link in the competitiveness of the Great Lakes region are the 
Great Lakes themselves, a system of five lakes which connects our 
breadbasket and heavy industries to other destinations across the 
globe.
  For decades we have relied upon the good assistance of NOAA's Great 
Lakes Environmental Research Lab to provide sound science to our 
mariners, State and local governments, and citizens on a variety of 
Great Lakes issues.
  GLERL costs U.S. taxpayers a little less than $5 million. The 
benefits it provides to taxpayers far surpasses its costs by providing 
crucial data and information to decisionmakers at all levels, while 
providing the science necessary to protect the world's largest body of 
fresh surface water--one of our Nation's most previous and vital 
natural resources.


          GLERL is a Fact-Finding and Fact-Interpreting Agency

  GLERL helps the Federal Government meet its scientific, ecosystem, 
and management responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement with Canada. This responsibility spans eight states, two 
provinces, and contain a 1000-mile international border. Losing GLERL 
would put these responsibilities in severe jeopardy.
  GLERL is one of only two nonregulatory Federal lake/coastal-waters-
related research labs in the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Science 
Center is the other, which is scheduled to close due to the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  GLERL and Ohio State University created a system being used by the 
Great Lakes coastal forecasting system on Lake Erie that provides 
forecasts of currents, waves, water levels. These forecasts are of 
critical importance to lake shore residents, the fishing and shipping 
industries, and recreational users. This cutting edge system will soon 
be turned over to the National Weather Service to be used in their 
forecasting data.
  GLERL has recently completed studies in Old Women Creek, Lake Erie, 
to help figure the role of wetlands in reducing the effects of nutrient 
inputs from nonpoint agricultural sources. This information will help 
farmers develop coherent, nonregulatory pollution control.


                     GLERL Work has Saved Billions

  GLERL's nutrient dynamics and modeling work contributed to saving 
over $10 billion dollars of ineffective additional sewage treatment. 
Note: At the present GLERL appropriations level of $5.6 million per 
year, these savings are equivalent to over 1,000 years of GLERL 
funding.
  When zebra mussels clogged the water intakes in Monroe, MI, and cut 
off drinking water supplies, GLERL went to work to determine not only 
how to control zebra mussels, but how to keep them clear of vital water 
lines.
  GLERL has worked extensively with private industry, providing models 
to help them with a host of problems. An example being a model created 
by GLERL of the Detroit River for Detroit Edison to aid with their 
hydro-power predictions.
  GLERL's expertise and research related to contaminated sediments were 
key to the findings and recommendations of a scientific panel, led by 
GLERL scientists, that the Coast Guard relax their proposed
 regulations, thus saving the shipping industry tens of millions of 
dollars in lost time and additional costs. These regulations were 
modified as a result of the sound science provided by GLERL.

  GLERL's CoastWatch Synthetic Aperture Radar Applications Program has 
developed better means of identifying ice type and ice concentration on 
the Great Lakes. GLERL's data is used by the National Weather Service 
and the U.S. Coast Guard in their ice forecasting, search and rescue, 
and ship assistance activities. This function of GLERL is critical to 
the billion dollar fishing and shipping industry in the Great Lakes 
basin.
  GLERL is currently studying the rainfall-runoff relationship of the 
121 watersheds within the Great Lakes basin. This work is essential to 
predicting lake levels, information which is essential to shipping and 
hydroelectric power.


                         glerl helps save lives

  When the people of Milwaukee became sick--and some died--from 
contaminated drinking water, GLERL began an intensive search to 
understand near-shore water conditions which will help prevent future 
health catastrophe caused by drinking water contamination.
  GLERL's Great Lakes atmospheric wave model gives local emergency 
preparedness agencies the ability to make advanced predictions of 
shoreline flooding caused by storm surges. GLERL's research will give 
property owners and industries time to protect their property and 
evacuate to higher ground.
  GLERL's wind wave models have provided the National Weather Service 
with a more accurate forecasts and warnings of wave conditions on the 
Lakes, thus helping safeguard the lives of commercial and recreational 
boaters.
  GLERL's Pathfinder model for oil/chemical spill trajectory is used by 
NOAA on the Great Lakes for spill response and by the Coast Guard to 
help guide search and rescue operations.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to praise 
the good work of our chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member for their cooperation in bringing about this bipartisan 
compromise. As a member of the Committee on Science and chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for the Committee on 
National Security, I am very concerned about the cuts that are being 
made to the NOAA accounts and the cuts that are being made in ocean 
research and ocean programs. While I am not totally pleased with the 
amount of money this puts back in, I think this does make a statement 
that we want to keep our ocean research programs in place, that we want 
to place additional funds into the coastal zone management program, 
that we want to support the marine fisheries programs, all of which are 
extremely important.
  This is a necessary compromise. I wish we could go further, but in 
this tough budget environment it is the best we could get. I want to 
thank both sides for working this agreement out, and hopefully we can 
continue to work in a bipartisan manner for the good of our world 
oceans and world cooperation in these issues in the future.

[[Page H7739]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the compromise that 
has been worked out on both sides of the aisle. A couple of quick 
comments to show the Members the importance of these little-known 
issues:
  The National Marine Fisheries Service is the entity that collects the 
biological data on coastal fisheries worth billions and billions of 
dollars to this country. Even if we stopped fishing in all the oceans, 
we could still lose 70 percent of the commercially caught fish if we 
did not have any sense of where these fish spawn and where these fish 
spend a good deal of their life. The National marine Fisheries Service 
collects that biological data, and I appreciate the increase in the 
amount of money. The Great Lakes is an enormous attribute to the United 
States, so we need to have some sense of the fisheries in that area. 
The coastal ocean program forged grants, which is very valuable to 
coastal States, the Coastal Zone Management Act, a voluntary 
organization which provides valuable data on the biological health of 
our coastal economies.
  I would ask the Members though, as we pursue this effort, the 
National Marine Sanctuary program should use a little bit of attention 
as we move along on this issue.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. It maintains the funding which I believe is very crucial and 
important to the coastlines of these United States. By maintaining 
funding for the Coastal Zone Management Act we are maintaining stable 
and crucial resources for some of our country's most pristine, 
valuable, and ecologically sensitive real estate.
  Over the years, the Coastal Zone Management Act or CZMA has proven to 
be a cost-effective tool, which relies on State authorities to 
accomplish its objective of effectively balancing national, State, and 
local interests in the utilization of our Nation's finite coastal 
resources. This is a clear example of a program that empowers State and 
local decisionmakers. However, because States rely on Federal funding 
generally for between 50 and 100 percent of State program costs, 
significant reductions in Federal funding would severely reduce State 
capabilities to manage their coastal areas. In most States, the impacts 
would be felt most acutely at the local government level, where many of 
the Federal dollars end up.
  Mr. Chairman, I just hope that in future discussions we can address 
the issue of the national marine sanctuaries.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure my colleagues 
understand this is not a coastal vote. Those of us that really want to 
see environmental strategies work and want to see cooperative efforts 
between the local governments and the Federal Government need to 
support this motion. Those of us that want to see the old command-and-
control environmental regulations done away with and new progressive, 
aggressive environmental preservation move forward need to stand up and 
support this motion because it is really showing the kind of things 
that we can do right in protecting our environment, and I pointed out 
where we have done wrong, and I will continue to fight what we have 
done wrong, but I think we have an obligation when we point out where 
environmental regulations are wrong to also stand up for it when they 
are right, and this program and this strategy is one that we should 
support.
  So I ask those of my colleagues that want to protect private property 
rights, want to protect local control, now is the time to join with us 
that really want to protect the environment, to protect those rights 
and protect the environmental by supporting this cooperative effort 
between the Federal Government and the citizens at large.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by mr. allard

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: Page 47, strike lines 1 
     through 6, relating to the Under Secretary for Technology and 
     the Office of Technology Policy.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit 
debate on this amendment to 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment, and the gentleman 
from West Virginia, [Mr. Mollohan] will be recognized for 5 minutes in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for putting 
together a strong bill. I applaud the efforts he made to reduce the 
funding for programs which must be downsized in this tight budgetary 
climate. Nonetheless, we must not pass up an opportunity to eliminate a 
needless layer of bureaucracy and save $5 million.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I am personally committed 
to eliminating redundant and unnecessary bureaucracies. In this vein, I 
offer this amendment, which would zero out the funds for Undersecretary 
of Technology. Besides being redundant, this office helps to put the 
government in an area in which it should not be, the office assisting 
government ``in picking winners and losers,'' as stated by the OMB's 
fiscal year 1996 budget report, by benchmarking the competitiveness of 
industrial sectors.
  These programs do little to enhance our overall economic welfare. 
Although they may indeed help certain sectors or individual companies 
within those sectors, it harms the welfare of the Nation as a whole by 
wasting our limited tax dollars and by diverting resources toward those 
sectors in which we are relatively inefficient. This is the perfect 
definition of corporate welfare.
  However, even if we support these industrial policy programs, this 
amendment would not destroy the actual policies. It only cuts an office 
which the budget resolution claims is duplicative and unnecessary in 
its administrative and other responsibilities.
  A vote in favor of my amendment sends a strong signal that the House 
is in support of ending this unneeded office rather than continuing to 
fund it at a decreased level. We must completely eliminate unnecessary 
bureaucracies, rather than phasing them out over time. As in the 
private sector, a gradual approach only allows the affected agencies to 
grow back.
  Citizens for a Sound Economy and the National Taxpayers Union have 
strongly endorsed this amendment stating,

       In this time of making government smaller and more 
     efficient, the Office of Technology Policy is one bureaucracy 
     that serves virtually no purpose for American taxpayers. Its 
     elimination will show that Congress is serious about 
     downsizing government and allowing Americans to keep more of 
     their own money.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment and think it is a very unwise one, I certainly do not share 
his sentiments.

[[Page H7740]]

  This world is changing. We are increasingly becoming a smaller 
international community. It is becoming very apparent to everyone that 
we are going to have to be increasingly competitive in the technology 
areas.
  The Department of Commerce generally, Mr. Chairman, is the department 
that is strategically focusing on these issues, trying to promote 
international trade, and at the same time promote technology 
development in key areas, targeting areas that will be growth sectors 
into the future.
  The Technology Administration is the place that looks at these 
issues. It is not a lot of money. It is a very small investment to have 
this kind of strategic thinking. I think this elimination amendment is 
extremely unwise. The Technology Administration works with American 
industry to maximize the technology's contribution to economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I really hope that the body will not move on this issue 
in this appropriations bill. If there is some effort to reconstruct the 
Commerce Department, to look at Commerce generally, to look at its role 
into the future, the authorizing process is the proper place to do 
that, not here today. We have not had any hearings to suggest 
elimination of the Technology Administration during our appropriations 
hearings. We simply do not have a factual foundation to intelligently 
make this kind of a decision.
  The facts we do have are that increasingly this is a competitive 
international community. Our opposition, our competitors around the 
world, Europe, Japan, the emerging nations, are all focusing 
strategically on technology development.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment for 
all of those, I think, very good reasons.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Allard 
amendment to eliminate the Technology Administration.
  The Technology Administration is a redundant bureaucracy that is 
tasked with overseeing other departments. The elimination of this 
office will not harm other programs under the Department of Commerce 
jurisdiction, and some contend it may even cause other functions to 
perform better.
  In our efforts to downsize government, it is important for us to 
eliminate all layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. In my opinion the 
Technology Administration fits that category and I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. This may be 
one of the more shortsighted amendments that we will address in this 
Congress this year. In a time of global competition, the Office of 
Technology Administration is the one place in the Federal Government 
where the government is an ally, not an enemy, of our businesses here 
in this country. The Technology Administration acts as a focal point 
for all industry concerns, both foreign and domestic, such as the 
activities of foreign firms and their parent governments, the 
unintended consequences of legislation and regulations, and, as I said, 
a rapidly changing global economy.
  The Office of Technology Assistance is an advocate for industry in 
this country, at a time when our American businesses need help from the 
Government, not a silent voice here as they struggle to meet this 
worldwide competition.
  This would be a disaster for this country. The Office of Technology 
Administration manages and oversees the very things that make our 
businesses competitive. In a time where the marketplace in this country 
is squeezing the ability of our firms here in America to research and 
develop products over a long period of time without a short, virtually 
lifespan payback, this is the very thing that other countries are doing 
to gain a competitive edge.
  So I would urge all Members to reject this shortsighted amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Commerce Department's Technology Administration 
serves several important roles in the Federal Government that assist 
the private sector in maintaining a competitive edge. We should not 
only provide social assistance but we should also assist the private 
sector which is the backbone of our economic vitality.
  More than ever before, U.S. economic growth and prosperity depend on 
technological innovation. Here are just a few of the responsibilities 
of the Technology Administration.
  First, the Technology Administration is the only Federal agency 
charged with maximizing technology's contribution to the U.S. economy.
  Too often in the past, technology development, particularly by the 
Government, has ignored business issues that affect the ability of the 
private sector to bring new technologies to the marketplace.
  The Technology Administration works not only to see that America 
leads the world in creating new technologies, but that Federal 
economic, tax, trade, and regulatory policies help our business 
community, not hinder it.
  Second, the Technology Administration monitors the policies of our 
foreign competitors to ensure that U.S. firms are not handicappeed in 
the global marketplace.
  The Technology Administration works to ensure that American firms 
have access to foreign government sponsored technology development 
programs, while protecting U.S. intellectual property rights.
  Third, the Technology Administration acts as a focal point for 
industry concerns, such as the activities of foreign firms and their 
parent governments, the unintended consequences of legislation and 
regulations, and a rapidly changing global economy. The Technology 
Administration is an advocate for industry in addressing issues which 
affect U.S. competitiveness.
  Finally, the Technology Administration manages three organizations 
vital to U.S. competitiveness: The National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, the National Technical Information Service, and the Office 
of Technology Policy.
  Eliminating the Technology Administration will have a negligible 
impact on the Federal deficit, but it will deprive U.S. industry of an 
advocate within government at a time of intensifying global 
competition.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about change in the 
Congress, and we hear all sorts of reasons why there should not be 
change, that it is shortsighted if we work for change to take an agency 
like this that is working and doing so much for business. But in 
reality, the future shortsightedness is we need to balance the budgets 
and we need to look at where duplication is occurring, and this 
Technology Administration is a classic example of where we need to 
look.
  How many people do we need speaking on behalf of business? We have 
under the Office of the Undersecretary of Technology, the Office of 
Technology Policy. Currently, we have under the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. We have the National Technical Information 
Service. I would have to compliment the appropriation members for 
recognizing that we not longer need the National Technical Information 
Service. So that is being eliminated. They reduced by 50 percent the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and basically what we 
have is the Office of Technology Policy.
  Now, we have oversight of just this one and a half divisions under 
the Office of Undersecretary, a full Secretary. It seems to me that 
what we need to do is eliminate an administrative layer and let the 
head of the Office of Technical Policy report directly to the Secretary 
or the Deputy Secretary. I think it makes lots of sense. It is a 
tremendous opportunity for this Congress to make an effort to cut 
spending, to reduce duplication in programs.
  So I am urging a ``yes'' vote on the Allard amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], the very distinguished ranking minority 
member on the Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in opposition 
to the Allard amendment. I want to compliment the chairman and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee for the fine job they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here in this action and a number of 

[[Page H7741]]
  others is to try and define the terms of what is admittedly a 
revolution that is taking place in our concepts of government and the 
way it should operate. This is not a new phenomenon. I have been here 
long enough to have been through several revolutions in the way 
government sought to operate and the Congress sought to operate.
  What we are looking at here in the Technology Administration was 
really a part of the so-called Reagan revolution. This was created by a 
bill which President Reagan signed just before the end of this term, 
and it sought to change a situation that we all knew was bad, namely, 
the adversarial relationship that existed between the government and 
industry and business in this country.
  President Reagan wanted to establish a new, friendlier relationship 
in which industry and the government could in many areas become 
partners and work together in the best interests of this country. The 
Technology Administration was one of the primary features of the Reagan 
revolution effort to change the relationship between business and 
industry in this country.
  Now, I do not know what the current generation of Republicans wants 
to do in terms of the revolution. I had thought that they wanted to 
extend and build upon some of the earlier aspects of the Republican 
revolution, but apparently they want to throw out everything, the baby 
with the bath water.
  I hope we can do better than that. I hope we can look at these 
previous programs, determine whether they are working, and, if they 
are, continue to support them or to change them wherever necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier today, 
further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 17, printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 43, line 25, strike 
     ``386 commissioned officers'' and insert ``358 commissioned 
     officers''.

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is an amendment supported 
both by myself and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. What this 
amendment attempts to do is to capitalize on the agreement reached just 
a short time ago by our distinguished chairman and the ranking member 
from West Virginia. As you know, we just reduced funding for the NOAA 
fleet by roughly $12 million.

                              {time}  1730

  At the same time, what this amendment will do is to correspondingly 
reduce the number of NOAA officer corps members by 25 slots. NOAA, 
believe it or not, has its own navy and numerous admirals which receive 
full military pay and retirement benefits while, frankly, never facing 
any kind of enemy.
  Corps officers spend roughly two-thirds of their time behind desks 
because there are so many of them in relation to the size of the fleet. 
Since today we are beginning to reduce the NOAA fleet, it obviously 
makes sense to reduce the officer corps level.
  The NOAA authorization bill passed last month by the Committee on 
Science specifically terminates the NOAA Corps over 3 years, so this 
begins to reduce the size of the corps correspondingly. And I would 
point out that our amendment, mine and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley] is supported by both the Committee on Science and the Committee 
on Resources.
  In 1995, the commerce inspector general questioned the need for the 
NOAA Corps. The budget resolution calls for the elimination of the NOAA 
Corps. NOAA, quite frankly, does not need its own high-priced militia. 
In fact, the concept of a uniformed NOAA Corps predates NOAA and is an 
anachronistic throw-back to World War I, World War I, when mapping the 
U.S. coastline was considered a military, not a civilian endeavor.
  I think the amendment we have in front of us is budget neutral today, 
but in the long run will save a minimum of $700,000 a year, as we begin 
to reduce the size of the officer corps several million dollars a year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to join the gentleman from 
Wisconsin on this very important issue. Every time the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] finds an item that we can privatize, I am ready to 
join with him in that effort because we came to Congress to make a 
difference and reduce the size of the Federal Government. This clearly 
is an amendment that will allow for that slow elimination of the NOAA 
Corps, which are costing the taxpayers significant dollars.
  So I associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
urge my colleagues to vote favorably on this amendment to continue our 
mission to downsize the Federal Government.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment and think it is a 
good one and hope that it is approved.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have to objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. farr

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows;

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr: On page 44 of the bill, line 
     22, strike ``$55,500,000'' and insert instead 
     ``$57,500,000''.

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases the transfer from 
the fund to promote the development of fishery products to NOAA's 
operation, research, and facilities account. This increase of $2 
million would provide additional funding for the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Program.
  In 1995, $9.2 million was available from the fund for the fisheries 
development grants but only $7.2 million in the grants were awarded. 
This amendment maintains the level of funding for fishery grants from 
this fund while partially restoring reductions to the marine 
sanctuaries program.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores about 15 percent of the 25 
percent of the marine sanctuaries program that was cut. I think that it 
goes a long way to try to help a program that is not a very big one. It 
is a $12 million program in total.
  The program is very important because there are dozens of marine 
sanctuaries around the United States, not only in California but in 
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Texas, and 
Washington. So Members from those States are very interested in making 
sure that those programs are run effectively.
  Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California [Mrs. Seastrand] who also shares the largest marine 
sanctuary, the Monterey Bay Sanctuary.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment and 
additional funding for the National Marine Sanctuary Program. It is 
going to be of great assistance in law enforcement programs as well as 
giving opportunities to provide sanctuary educational materials to 
boaters and also to provide rescue service to stranded boaters in the 
sanctuary.
  This is of crucial importance to the Channel Islands National Marine 
Sanctuary in my district. The sanctuary produces a majority of the 
seafood harvested in California. It is a highly sensitive ecosystem and 
in my own possibly biased opinion is one of most beautiful coastal 
waters in these United States.
  To eliminate significant funding, whether it is for the Channel 
Islands National Marine Sanctuary or the beautiful Monterey Bay 
sanctuary, I think 

[[Page H7742]]

would be a mistake. We have tobe prepared for oil spills and other 
emergencies. I think for this reason and aforementioned points, I would 
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment, 
which reinstates funding for the coastal zone management program and 
marine sanctuary program.
  I would just like to say something about the word sanctuary. Whenever 
anyone hears that word, we think of something being precious, something 
being holy, as it were. There have been great battles in California to 
designate our precious areas of our coast as marine sanctuaries. These 
are gifts of our Nation that we share with all of our citizens and the 
citizens of the world, because they come to see it.
  So I think that funding should match the nobility of what we have. I 
rise to support what the gentleman from California is doing. He has 
been on the forefront of this issue for many, many years. I think that 
the Congress of the United States would distinguish itself in 
appropriating some money so that we can continue saying that this is 
indeed sanctuary, it is holy, it is something special, and we should 
treat it that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farr amendment, which 
reinstates funding for the Coastal Zone Management Program and the 
Marine Sanctuary Program.
  Our Nation is largely a coastal one, with 80 percent of Americans 
living within 50 miles of the coast. The increasing demands on our 
coastal resources that result from the growing number of people and 
industries residing in coastal areas require sound policy and an 
adequate level of protection.
  The Coastal Zone Management Program is a proven State Federal 
partnership that protects our national treasures and promotes economic 
development. It is a voluntary program that 34 of 35 eligible States 
have chosen to participate in. They have elected to participate in this 
program because it allows them to establish their own programs based 
upon their own needs.
  The $9 million that the Farr amendment seeks to reinstate is critical 
for allowing local coastal managers to continue doing their jobs. I 
remind my colleagues that the increasing demands on our coasts will not 
go away if we choose to retreat from our Federal commitment. Indeed, 
failing to adequately fund this program will only result in a declining 
economy and a declining quality of life for the majority of Americans 
that choose to live and visit our beautiful coasts.
  The sanctuaries program protects and conserves our Nation's most 
precious marine resources. Limited funding in the past has barely kept 
pace with this rapidly growing program. But the 50 percent cut proposed 
by the Republicans would require closing some sites and drastically 
reducing funding for others.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs are vital to our coastal and marine 
resources. I urge my colleagues to support the Farr amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. We want to thank 
the gentleman for bringing it to our attention and hope the body will 
adopt it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Strike page 36, line, 21, 
     through page 38, line 4.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 50 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided between the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], who is opposed to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would the 
Chair explain that arrangement to me again?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has asked 
unanimous consent that all debate time on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto conclude within 50 minutes and that the time be 
equally divided between the proponent of the amendment, the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and an opponent, in this case the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield half of my time to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be 
recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes in opposition, and the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes in 
opposition, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] will be 
recognized for 25 minutes in favor of the amendment.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  the CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] will be 
recognized for 25 minutes, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], 
will be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to come here today and tell my colleagues 
what I think about the Economic Development Administration, but I have 
decided I am not going to do that. After all, I am not the one who 
audits the EDA's books.
  In order to assess the effectiveness of the EDA, I should be telling 
Members what the Department of Commerce inspector general says about 
the EDA. Let us start with the March 1995 report. The inspector general 
said that the CPA firm was unable to express an opinion on the 
revolving funds statement of financial position because of multiple, 
material weaknesses in EDA's internal control structure. The IG went on 
to note that the nature and extent of the internal control deficiencies 
reported by the CPA firm indicate serious problems in financial 
mismanagement at EDA.
  Several of these issues were previously raised by the inspector 
general in the past. However, little progress has been made since the 
survey report was issued 2\1/2\ years ago.
  Here is a list of the audit headlines in the March 1995 report. In 
order to be fair, I will read the positive results first. South 
Carolina city earned full Federal funding of public works project. City 
in Texas properly managed public works grant. Those are the two 
positive reports.
  Let us get to the negative ones. Michigan county committed serious 
grant violations, $1,285,000. A New Jersey public works project not 
financially feasible, $34,000. Revolving loan fund created to relieve 
impact of Hurricane Andrew, not needed, $1,900,000. Grant to Michigan 
organization should be terminated, $243,000. Louisiana grantees 
mismanage revolving loan fund, $388,000. Indiana recipient violated 
Federal regulations and grant requirements, $475,000. Cost question on 
South Carolina public works project, $120,000. Iowa recipient 
mismanaged grant funds, $1,500,000.
  And in September 1994, the IG report said more of the same. Georgia 
revolving loan fund operator directed to return $3 million in 
overcharges and excess cash, $3 million. Ohio revolving loan fund 
grantee violated EDA approved plan, $90,000. Grantee mismanaged 
Tennessee revolving loan fund, $34,000. City of South Carolina 
inadequately accounted for revolving loan fund, $238,000. And get this, 
this money is still missing. Arizona public works project, jeopardized 
by grantee mismanagement, $504,000.
  Unneeded public works project in New Mexico should be terminated, 

[[Page H7743]]

$400,000. Texas grantee improperly solicited matching share from 
borrower, $50,000. Audit of proposed grant reveal need for clearer 
definition of demonstration projects, $4,300,000.
  My state is not immune either. In fact one EDA grantee in Colorado 
faced felony embezzlement charges before settling out of court for the 
money that she owed.
  Mr. Chairman, that is over $14 million of problems discovered by the 
inspector general. There are hundreds of more grants out there just 
like these, but they will probably never be discovered or investigated 
by the Department of Commerce inspector general.
                              {time}  1745

  I have not read a report this bad since Price Waterhouse left here a 
few weeks ago. It is time to put an end to this outrageous abuse of 
taxpayer dollars, support the Hefley-Solomon-Goss amendment, and let us 
put an end to the EDA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I hope the House 
will once again defeat the Hefley proposal to eliminate the Economic 
Development Administration. If we do not vote this amendment down we 
will deprive hard-hit communities, all over the country, of the vital 
assistance provided by the EDA which was created to help our Nation's 
poorest areas raise their standards of living, or to help communities 
recover from sudden economic disasters.
  I say to the Members, it has worked in my congressional district and 
virtually every other. EDA provides basic infrastructure in poor 
counties so they can attract the private investments that lead to long-
term jobs. EDA is the cornerstone of our efforts to help local 
communities rebound from the loss of a military base or defense 
downsizing. In fact, EDA has helped 151 communities hard hit by base 
closures over the last 3 years alone. These areas are converting bases 
to provided long-term jobs to the people that depended on them for 
decades. Today new communities, facing another round of base closures, 
need EDA to help their families bounce back, but like other good 
programs, EDA must be streamlined and reformed and targeted, and this 
bill does that.
  First, we cut EDA dramatically, a 21-percent reduction in grants, a 
full one-third reduction in staff, almost $100 million in cuts. Second, 
we have worked closely with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] of the 
Committee on Transportation, who are pushing the most significant 
overhaul of EDA programs in 15 years.
  Our reforms provide fewer funds and put them in areas that need help 
the most. They provide greater local and State control over project 
decisions. No longer will Washington pick and choose the projects. Our 
Governors, our local officials, our communities will decide. If our 
local factory pulls out, EDA monies will help our town create new 
opportunities for its workers.
  Mr. Chairman, if NAFTA or the GATT treaty pushes our industry to 
Mexico or overseas, EDA will be there if Members vote down this 
amendment. If Members have any of the 50,000 defense jobs potentially 
being eliminated in this year's base closure process, their communities 
will need this program more than ever.
  Let me repeat. In this bill, we cut EDA by 21 percent. We say ``No 
more bloated Washington bureaucracy,'' and we targeted these very 
limited dollars to communities and families that simply cannot afford 
to cope with disasters and job loss. They need our help. Give them our 
vote. Vote down this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Hefley 
amendment. No other agency, no other program, Mr. Chairman, in the 
Federal Government has the flexibility of EDA to respond to unique 
community needs. EDA programs target funds in areas of need and 
assistance across the board. For communities who are experiencing 
structural economic changes, and many across the Nation are, EDA 
provides flexible assistance to help them design and implement their 
own local recovery strategies. For communities who are experiencing 
long-term economic distress, EDA provides funding necessary to repair 
decaying infrastructure, and it is doing so in virtually every 
congressional district across the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, defense conversion has been on the lips and minds of 
every Member of this Congress, and we have had strategies to try to 
address the massive job losses associated with defense downsizing. It 
is EDA that has the flexibility to step up and address those concerns. 
Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years EDA has invested $15.6 billion in 
our Nation's distressed communities. I really urge my colleagues to 
think strongly about this amendment. Oppose the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of Representatives Hefley and Solomon. Mr. Chairman, the new 
Congress was elected with a clear mandate to eliminate any and all 
wasteful spending and reduce the size and scope of the Federal 
Government. I applaud the work of Chairmen Livingston and Rogers in 
crafting a Commerce, Justice, State bill that reflects that goal and 
makes difficult choices in a responsible manner.
  Nevertheless, I worry that certain programs that have outlived their 
usefulness may escape intact, slightly slenderized but still weighing 
down the American taxpayer needlessly. It seems to me that we must 
examine all Federal programs not only as to cost, but also ask 
ourselves if there is an appropriate Federal role. EDA fails this test 
on several levels.
  EDA purports to assist distressed areas yet its broad eligibility 
criteria allows areas containing 80 percent of the U.S. population to 
compete for benefits. EDA's programs are duplicative--four separate 
departments along with the ARC, TVA, and SBA fund similar development 
programs. EDA programs are not cost efficient--one analysis on an EDA 
Emergency Jobs Program suggested each job created ultimately cost the 
American taxpayer $307,000, seven times the cost of the private sector.
  Again, I commend the committee for the 25 percent cut in EDA 
funding--it is a step in the right direction. But it is not enough to 
merely cut back on programs that are no longer appropriate. We must 
take the next step to rip out the roots altogether. As we are ready to 
eliminate the Commerce Department in the authorization process, I would 
suggest it is time to fold the tent at the EDA.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the authorizing committee for EDA.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, but I must say that 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss] are quite accurate in many things they say about criticizing 
some of the boondoggles we have seen in EDA and the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  That is the reason, that is the reason why yesterday in our 
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we abolished EDA and we 
put in its place a Federal, State, and local partnership of regional 
commissions.
  The gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct when he says 80 
percent of the country is eligible. That is wrong. Yesterday we changed 
that. We cut it right in half. We not only cut it in half, we also 
upped the criteria to be eligible in another respect and said for a 
county to be eligible, they have to be above the unemployment rate by 
at least 1 percent. Yes, also, this is a partnership program where we 
also said the Federal share will only be 50 percent. If it is a good 
program, the States and the localities have
 to come with the other 50 percent.

  Stop and think about it. We have fundamentally changed this program 
by abolishing the Economic Development Administration itself, putting 
in its place regional commissions, cutting, as my friend, the gentleman 
from 

[[Page H7744]]
Kentucky, has said, cutting $100 million a year out of the program, 
reforming the program to the extent that only the truly needy counties 
are eligible. My good friend, the gentleman from Florida, also talks 
about an example of the job creation costs on a particular project 
being several thousands of dollars.
  I do not doubt that, but if we look at the overall cost of the 
program, the cost to create a job, that figure is $2,500. Compared to 
many other programs, this is a very efficient program. I would say, 
particularly to my freshman colleagues, the model that we have adopted 
in abolishing EDA and putting in its place these regional commissions 
is the model proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi, Roger Wicker, 
the president and leader of the freshman class. He is the one that came 
to the committee, he is the one that proposed this regional commission 
approach.
  I say vote down this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Wise], the ranking member of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] who have done 
such an able job.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This 
bill provides $348 million for EDA programs. This appropriation is well 
within the Economic Development Administration authorization which our 
Subcommittee on Public Building and Grounds and Economic Development 
unanimously, unanimously, passed yesterday, incidentally, at the same 
time cutting $100 million a year out of EDA in the authorization for a 
savings of $\1/2\ billion over the 5-year period.
  EDA is essential to these efforts. In the past 30 years it has 
created almost 40,000 economic development projects, generated more 
than almost $2 billion of private sector capital through revolving loan 
funds that have supported more than 7,000 businesses, leveraged $3 for 
every Federal dollar invested.
  To the critics of EDA who want to vote for this amendment because 
they do not believe the programs have worked as well as they do, I say, 
``Before you vote, listen to the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], look at the authorization bill that passed 
yesterday.'' This is a visionary, responsive, and constructive new 
version of EDA.
  The bipartisan bill creates a national, Federal, State, and local 
partnership that focuses on the local governments, and particularly on 
the Governors being directly involved in economic development. It 
involves regional commissions. It tightens EDA's program eligibility 
criteria and lowers it significantly from what it was. It requires all 
applicants to develop an investment strategy.
  A recent EDA project in our State generated over 300 jobs. I 
calculated for what the Federal taxpayers put in, it would be repaid in 
new taxes coming from those workers alone in less than 4 years. That is 
an incredible return on the money, and over 300 more people are working 
that would not have been working elsewhere. I urge Members to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I want to put my faith in 
the marketplace. I have respect for what the gentleman is trying to do. 
I support what the gentleman is trying to do with his amendment, 
because the real, the real test of business is when we allow the 
consumer to go out here and they vote on a daily basis with their 
dollar bill, paying for those services that they feel like they want 
and they need.
  When we pass out Federal dollars or Government dollars and then 
businesses go ahead and compete, it becomes a system of grantsmanship: 
who can write up the best grant, who can plead the hardest for what 
they need. The best and most humane system we have, and this is what we 
need to encourage, is a system that says ``Individuals can go out there 
and they make their selection on the services they want to receive.'' 
The best thing we can do for hardship cases is to reduce the tax 
burden, to reduce the regulatory burden, and do away with this process 
where we have some bureaucrat out here saying, ``Okay, you are going to 
be a winner and you are going to be a loser, and you get this benefit 
and you do not get that benefit.'' I think we are much better off to 
support the Hefley amendment and encourage the free market system.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who is the chairman of the subcommittee in 
charge of EDA, the authorizing subcommittee.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like us to all ponder a question: What is the 
role of the Federal Government in economic development. What is our 
role? We hear a lot about the private sector. I think everybody here 
believes in the private sector. I believe that the role of the Federal 
Government is to create an environment conducive for economic 
productivity in the private sector. Once in a while, the Federal 
Government needs to play that particular role.
  The new Republican majority has raised a lot of questions as to what 
the role is that Government should play in the private sector, and I 
think we can all agree that in certain circumstances, the Federal 
Government needs to provide the infrastructure, whether it is highways, 
water projects, certain basic needs that the community cannot provide 
for itself.
  I want to make one other point here. This is not a giveaway program. 
This whole program has been reformed, and to a large extent this 
program provides grants so communities can make them into loans, and 
these distressed communities can create much more diversity in their 
economy.
  The EDA reform bill, which our subcommittee recently reported, will 
make significant changes in the way the agency is structured. The 
Washington bureaucracy of EDA, and listen to this, the Washington 
bureaucracy of EDA, is entirely eliminated. It will be replaced by 
eight regional commissions that will be controlled by the States. I 
might add that under the reforms we have passed, EDA will no longer be 
dependent on the Department of Commerce. If the Department of Commerce, 
if it is the will of the House and the Senate to get rid of it, EDA can 
continue.

                              {time}  1800

  Finally, we will get back to focusing on the mission of EDA, which is 
creating infrastructure, but I want to make one last important point. 
The second main mission is one that is gaining in importance with each 
new round of base closings.
  Many communities stand to be devastated by the loss of defense-
related jobs. The bill before us directs significant resources into 
defense conversion. EDA is the largest program aimed at weaning 
communities off these defense-related agencies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason for EDA was to help with infrastructure, to 
help underdeveloped areas, and to help with jobs. That is the name of 
the game, Mr. Chairman.
  In my area, I can point to a foreign trade zone, I can point to a 
shrimp boat harbor, I can point to all of the areas where we have 
developed with the help of EDA in cooperation with the local 
communities.
  I do not know that we need any more than strong oversight by the 
appropriations subcommittee and by the committee of jurisdiction. I 
know that there are some practices that need to be changed. Maybe there 
are some people that need to be replaced. But I can say that my 
experience with EDA has been very positive and we have worked together.
  I would like to mention Joe Bailey Swanner, who was the regional 
director for EDA when I first came to the Congress. He was a 
professional amongst the professionals. He did what needed to be done. 
The jobs are there, the infrastructure is there. I can say, 

[[Page H7745]]
``Thank you, Joe Bailey Swanner. Thank you, EDA.''
  All of the other things can be corrected by oversight, yes, maybe 
they need to change some practices and change some people. Otherwise, I 
think they do not deserve the fate that is pronounced for them here. 
EDA has served my area well and I am happy to support them.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Did you hear that?
  You will.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hefley amendment. I 
dropped this on the table here. This is $850 billion in spending cuts. 
It balances the budget.
  Every single Member of this body that voted for a balanced budget 
ought to be voting for this amendment, because it is in here, along 
with $850 billion of other cuts. This amendment is consistent with our 
goal of balancing the budget.
  Eliminating the Department of Commerce. Are any Members going to vote 
for that? I am. You said you would. Then come over here and vote for 
this amendment. This redefines the role of the Federal Government.
  To truly understand what we are trying to do, I think it may be 
insightful for the House to review the history of this 30-year-old 
program. I say that, and I have probably benefited from this program in 
my district as much as any other district. But, ladies and gentlemen, 
we have got to balance the budget, or this country is going to go down 
the drain.
  The EDA was formed under the Public Works and Economic Development 
Act of 1965 as an agency of the Department of Commerce to provide 
Federal assistance to State and local governments through grants that 
can be used for public works, technical assistance, defense conversion 
activities, job programs, and loan guarantees to firms for business 
development.
  Originally created to support the economic growth in some of this 
country's neediest areas, the EDA through years of bureaucratic growth 
and political maneuvering has outgrown its purpose and outlived its 
usefulness, as hundreds of others bureaus and agencies have done.
  In our budget, we eliminated them, we restructured the Federal 
Government.
  Over the years, EDA has poured thousands of dollars into politically 
connected schemes that have invested in shopping centers and hotels in 
my district, okay? Talk about corporate welfare. Hotels in my district, 
boating marinas, amusement parks and numerous loans that went, bad, 
bad, bad, that all of you and your families and I paid for.
  The most notorious EDA grant earned the EDA former Wisconsin Senator 
William Proxmire's Golden Fleece award for spending $200,000 to build a 
limestone replica of the Great Wall of China in, of all places, 
Bedford, IN. I do not know what it is doing there. I think I will go 
out and take a look at it. That boondoggle followed a $500,000 grant to 
build a 10-story model of the great pyramid of Egypt. Clearly Federal 
dollars could be better used than on that project.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not just random EDA expenditures. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, EDA programs have been criticized 
for substituting Federal credit for private credit.
  This is the United States of America. Let us get the Federal 
Government out of the loan business, and for facilitating the 
relocation of businesses from one distressed area to another. In other 
words, you come from a distressed area and your community puts in an 
application. It scores high. So what it does, it creates a program to 
take a business out of one distressed area and put it in the other. 
Does that make any sense? Absolutely not.
  The EDA has also been criticized for its broad eligibility criteria 
which allows areas containing 80 percent of the United States 
population to compete for benefits and for providing aid with little 
proven
 effect compared with other programs having similar goals.

  Despite these faults, some in this body may argue that eliminating 
this funding will unduly harm local communities. However, due to the 
competitive nature of EDA programs, local governments already do not 
incorporate this type of aid into their annual budgets, so you are not 
going to hurt them one dollar.
  Therefore, eliminating future EDA funding effective immediately would 
not impose unexpected hardships on any community in this United States, 
but instead would foster more local control of developing local 
solutions to local problems and at the same time save the American 
taxpayers over $349 million. While the EDA may have once funded on a 
greatest needs basis, today the decisions have become in a great many 
cases highly politicized, with absolute need apparently no longer a 
priority.
  I say all this, ladies and gentlemen, because in my district I have 
taken advantage of this, but the truth of the matter is this. Like 
other programs--the Small Business Administration, I came out of the 
small business area--it just is not right to subsidize one business at 
the expense of another. Every time we make a Small Business 
Administration loan to someone who has been turned down from 2 to 3 
banks, and the next-door neighbor in competition with him has got to 
pay the income taxes to pay for the loan guarantee and the interest on 
that loan, that is wrong.
  Ladies and gentlemen, if we are going to restructure this government, 
if we are going to stop this sea of red ink that is literally ruining 
this country, so that the annual debt service just to pay the interest 
on this loan today is more than the defense budget, that is what it is 
going to be for 7 years, you are going to be held responsible. Your 
children are going to regret it. That is why you ought to vote for this 
amendment.
  If you are going to say with all the rhetoric that you support a 
balanced budget, then you are going to have to cut in your district as 
well as the other guy's. That is what I am doing in mine. That is why 
you have got to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
  (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the 
amendment to H.R. 2076 offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Hefley and 
Solomon. I support the proposed funding level for the programs and 
administrative expenses of the Economic Development Administration 
[EDA]. The EDA has effectively operated the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Center and maintaining this mutual relationship is essential to 
continue to protect American workers and manufacturers nationwide who 
have been severely impacted by foreign imports.
  I have been a strong advocate of retaining adequate funding levels 
for both the EDA and the Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA] program. 
Over 23,000 manufacturing firms in my home State of Pennsylvania rely 
on TAA. I was pleased to see that in an era of tremendous fiscal 
constraint, the Committee disagreed with President Clinton's 
recommendation to eliminate the program and chose to include sufficient 
resources to provide strategic protection for our domestic workforce in 
a competitive world economy.
  The number of jobs and amount of company sales supported by TAA is 
impressive, particularly relative to the modest amount of Federal 
investment. In Pennsylvania, this private/public partnership has 
resulted in the protection or creation of approximately 6,000 jobs and 
$485 million in company sales. Moreover, nationwide TAA has resulted in 
the reinvestment of $742 into the economy (including Federal tax 
revenues) for every Federal dollar appropriated for the program. That's 
a solid investment by any standard.
  I urge my colleagues to protect U.S. manufacturing by continuing TAA 
funding through the able administration of the EDA. TAA and other 
services provided by the EDA will allow our companies to compete with 
imports, and expand into the global marketplace.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Economic 
Development Administration and against the Hefley amendment.
  Why is it that we are against the Federal Government lending a 
helping hand to economically distressed communities? Were we 

[[Page H7746]]
sent to Washington to abandon areas of our Nation that require Federal 
assistance to provide jobs for their citizens? I don't think so.
  Now I am not claiming that every EDA loan or grant can be defended. 
But this amendment throws out the baby with the bathwater. The 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is in the process of 
reauthorizing EDA, and I am confident that bill can clean up any 
problems with the agency. You don't improve a program by eliminating 
it.
  Killing EDA is particularly offensive right now because many 
communities being aided buy the EDA are the victims of Federal 
policies. Almost $100 million in this bill would go to assist 
communities that have been hard-hit by base closures and realignments. 
Don't we have an obligation to assist communities that have been harmed 
by sudden reversals of Federal policy? I think we do, and so do those 
on the Appropriations Committee.
  I could provide a list of EDA success stories, but my time is 
limited, and I'm sure many of you have your own lists from your own 
districts. The EDA is a successful means to fulfill Federal 
obligations. The Appropriations Committee--hardly a bunch of big 
spenders--have recognized this.
  This bill cuts funding by 21 percent, but it allows a reformed EDA to 
continue working to endure that American in all regions of this country 
can share in our prosperity. That's a worthy and necessary mission. I 
urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which would completely eliminate the Economic Development 
Administration [EDA] and all its programs.
  Mr. Chairman, over the years, the EDA has played a pivotal role in 
helping communities across the country overcome severe economic 
difficulties. This is an excellent example of a program that truly 
works.
  I have seen the good work of the EDA in action. In particular two 
communities in my district, Worcester and Attleboro, MA, have receive 
much-needed assistance from the EDA. These communities were hit 
particularly hard during the period of economic hardship that swept 
across the country earlier this decade.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly economic development assistance remains an 
important source of funding for many communities. At the same time, I 
recognize the need for reform and reductions in Federal spending. As a 
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I fully 
support the EDA reform bill that was recently reported out of 
subcommittee.
  In closing, I would simply state that this amendment is ill-advised 
and would destroy a program that has helped and continues to help needy 
communities around the country. I applaud Chairman Rogers for his 
support and interest in the EDA. Reform measures and spending 
reductions are moving through the committee process which will result 
in an even stronger, more efficient and responsive economic development 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Economic Development Administration. With all due respect to my friend 
the gentleman from New York, I have a completely different view of the 
EDA.
  We are talking about help in distressed areas of this country. I 
represent a coal mining district that has been closed down by the 
Federal Clean Air Act. You want to talk about help to our communities? 
It was the EDA that helped us get a water tower, I say to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], that saved 1,250 jobs in one of those 
communities that was devastated in a coal mining community.
  It was the EDA that helped us put a sewer line into a business park 
that had been ravaged by another one of our Federal acts. It was the 
EDA that helped us put in a water line and a sewer line for an 
industrial park that has created a diverse economic opportunity for 
hundreds of people in my district.
  I have a distressed area. The EDA and the Small Business 
Administration above all Federal agencies are the two agencies that 
have helped us forge Federal, State, and local partnerships to save our 
jobs in this country, and we should not be cutting funding for this 
agency.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my good friend, where 
the problem is, it is not with keeping the EDA going. We ought to come 
with the Corrections Calendar and repeal some of those things that have 
caused all those problems in the gentleman's district. I am on that 
committee. I will support him if he does.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to some of the things that have been said. The 
budget that we passed here the other day, the balanced budget by 2002, 
assumed that we would get rid of the EDA. That was a part of the 
assumption that was built into that budget and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] eloquently made that point. It did not assume, as 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] said, that we would get 
rid of the EDA but we would change its name to something else.
  What does that do for the $348 million if you move it from this 
pocket to that pocket? I guess we can go home and we can brag to our 
constituents, We got rid of the EDA. You wanted us to get rid of that. 
We got rid of the EDA, and it's gone. But then it is over here doing 
something else. That does not save the money. That does not get us down 
the road to the time when we will have a balanced budget in the year 
2002.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Economic Development 
Administration's level of funding contained in this bill. Consequently, 
I oppose the amendment. I want to congratulate the people that have 
spoken out. I am going to sound something like a chorus here: The 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman; the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster]; and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] as well. We 
are fighting within a tight budget to reform an administration that 
might in some ways need some reform but has been incredibly effective 
in my community there in Alabama.
  In the Fifth District of Alabama, EDA has helped leverage non-Federal 
funds on projects ranging from water treatment facilities to business 
incubators. I think most of my local officials are clearly endorsing 
EDA, especially its concept of helping communities that help 
themselves. EDA is important because it provides seed money that 
promotes long-term investments that respond to locally defined economic 
priorities.
  I hope the Members will pay attention to this debate. I think we owe 
as much responsibility to revise and evaluate before we eliminate. We 
should not make an extreme move and eliminate EDA. I oppose this 
amendment.
                              {time}  1815

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself as a very 
practical matter with the remarks just made by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  My district is right across the river from the gentleman's district, 
and I can say the gentleman knows whereof he speaks and I share his 
sentiments. I also agree with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] 
who made an exceedingly fine philosophical statement with which I can 
also agree.
  But the answer, Mr. Chairman, lies somewhere between economic purism 
and the reality of factors out and around the country that would say 
from time to time, certainly in some of these small, disadvantaged 
communities, some help is needed. So I do not think the answer lies all 
one way or the other.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from New York in his 
presentation of bouncing books on the table 

[[Page H7747]]
down here had apparently not heard the statement of the Chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who has assured the 
House that significant serious reform is in process in the committee, 
and that significant dollars will be shaved and more appropriately 
directed than in the past.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment and urge Members 
to take a more balanced view.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment and 
in support of the successor agency to the Economic Development 
Administration. First, I want to explain what the EDA does and has done 
for those who may not be familiar with this issue. The EDA works with 
many of America's most economically distressed local communities and 
regions to plan and implement development projects to create jobs, 
retain jobs, and spur economic growth throughout rural and urban 
America.
  In fact, I can tell you that had it not been for the EDA, several 
communities in my rural district would not have been able to attract 
the businesses and jobs that are now located in these areas. Over the 
years, the EDA has leveraged billions of dollars in local government 
and private capital for projects and generated billions more in tax 
revenues. For these reasons, the EDA has enjoyed the bipartisan support 
of the Congress for 30 years.
  This Congress will soon approve or disapprove BRAC's third round of 
recommendations for base closure and realignments. These 
recommendations will have a devastating impact on communities and 
families across the nation. Who do you think will be there to offer 
help to these cities and towns? The Economic Development Agency or its 
successor agency will be there only if this amendment fails.
  When rivers rise and communities are flooded; when earthquakes strike 
and all that is left is rubble; when a major plant closes due to 
foreign trade and leaves behind a virtual ghost town; when a community 
comes up with a great development plan but can't scrape together all 
the funding by itself, who steps in to help? The Economic Development 
Agency will, but only if this amendment fails.
  Mr. Chairman, while opponents may question the usefulness of the EDA 
and exaggerate the past problems associated with the program, I stand 
and want to reform it, but not abolish it. I want to take a moment to 
explain that the authorizing committees are working on reforms. Under 
the able leadership of Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gilchrest, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and its Subcommittee on 
Public Buildings and Economic Development, EDA reform legislation is 
coming together.
  EDA reform legislation replaces the federal bureaucracy with regional 
commissioners to make policy and grant decisions. The bill would also 
reform eligibility criteria to focus funds on truly distressed regions 
and cuts spending by $100 million a year. And finally, the EDA reform 
bill would allow the EDA to continue to do its important work if the 
Department of Commerce is eliminated. Let me make this point clear. A 
vote for the EDA is not a vote for the Department of Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, the EDA is the only place for distressed communities to 
turn when they are not able to contribute all of the capital investment 
needed for legitimate public works and economic development projects. 
The EDA reform bill will change the way the EDA does business for the 
better. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I have heard all the arguments, and I join my colleague from Missouri 
[Mr. Emerson]. I have been to the gentleman's district, I have been to 
Illinois, I have been to Pennsylvania.
  What we are really talking about here, Mr. Chairman, is priorities. 
We are trying to save about one-fifth of a B-2 bomber, the $350 million 
we are talking about here. I cannot talk about the whole country, and I 
cannot say that there are not those examples of the Golden Fleece 
Award, as my friend, the gentleman from New York, mentioned, but I can 
tell you one little story.
  Nanticoke, PA, 3 years ago, was able to get an EDA grant that 
afforded the municipal authority the opportunity to build a $4 million 
building downtown. It was the first $4 million building built from the 
New York State line to Harrisburg, along the Susquehanna River, that 
had an elevator that went above two floors. In that building more than 
300 people today are employed in data processing for a Fortune 500 
insurance company that would never have come to northeastern 
Pennsylvania or that little town.
  Mr. Chairman, 300 people are employed making $15,000 to $25,000 a 
year that otherwise would have been on unemployment compensation, 
welfare, or unemployed. That is what economic development is all about. 
That is what our priorities should be all about.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman three decades ago ``Night Comes to the 
Cumberlands'' described the abject poverty and desperate economic 
conditions in which people in rural Appalachia lived, and the Nation 
responded with the Appalachian Regional Commission, an issue we settled 
on the floor last week.
  Similar conditions exist in rural areas and in pockets of poverty in 
urban areas around this country, and the Congress responded to their 
needs with the Economic Development Administration. Every year, the 
jobs created by EDA exceed the total amount of Federal investment by 
over $6 billion a year in Federal, State, and taxes paid from the jobs 
created by EDA.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not chop this program from the Federal budget. 
Let us give hope to the economically depressed areas, the investment-
starved areas of this country, so that, for them, ``Night Comes to the 
Cumberlands'' will become ``Morning Comes to America.''
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Towns].
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. At 
$348.5 million, the subcommittee has already reduced funding for EDA by 
21 percent from its fiscal year 1995 funding level. Totally eliminating 
funding for this Agency is not justified either from the standpoint of 
fiscal constraints or economic development policy.
  The Economic Development Administration plays a vital role in 
supporting and enhancing communities around this Nation in a manner 
that is not carried out by any other agency. EDA grants help localities 
to build the capacity to plan and implement economic development 
strategies needed to
 respond to problems and to restore an employment base.

  In areas where there has been a significant loss in the manufacturing 
sector, EDA has been able to halt further economic deterioration 
through its revolving loan programs to local businesses. In Buffalo, 
these efforts resulted in a 61-percent increase in manufacturing 
employment.
  EDA also aids strategic planning and feasibility studies that bolster 
cooperative efforts for local economic development. For example, EDA 
efforts in this area helped the State of Maryland and the city of 
Baltimore to develop a restructuring plan for the promotion of local 
biomedical research and health facilities.
  But Mr. Chairman perhaps the most important aspect of EDA programs 
are being overlooked here. The Agency's ability to pay for itself. It 
may be the only Federal program that is actually a net profit maker 
with a return for the Federal Government. Statistics suggest that 
approximately $3 of private investment is spurred by every invested EDA 
dollar.
  As the Secretary indicated in his testimony before Congress, ``* * * 
economic opportunity is not evenly dispersed to all communities * * *'' 
EDA programs strive to equalize the economic playing field for 
distressed communities. This week the Public Works Committee reported 
out new strict eligibility standards which will ensure that EDA grants 
are awarded to our most distressed regions. This action ensures that 
funds will only go to the neediest communities.
  Let us give these new changes an opportunity to work. EDA makes an 
important contribution to the economic vitality of this country. It is 
an agency that we need and an agency that deserves our support.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment to eliminate the EDA. The EDA works. We are cutting the 
EDA by 20 percent in this bill and that is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen it work in my own district in Virginia, 
where 

[[Page H7748]]
Henry County used an EDA grant to prepare a site for an industrial 
park. The EDA grant of $650,000 was matched by $740,000 in State and 
local money and attracted private sector investments of $68 million, 
100 times the investment of EDA.
  As a result, 550 people now work at the site in six different 
businesses. However, the site today would be an empty lot in a high 
unemployment area, except for the investment of the EDA.
  Mr. Chairman, my district is not unique. The EDA is targeted, it is 
effective and locally driven, and the EDA works in partnership with 
local leaders in the private sector to foster economic growth for 
citizens in distressed areas. Clearly, the EDA is an important cost-
effective agency; one that we should support, not eliminate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], a distinguished minority member 
of the authorizing committee.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleagues from Colorado, New York, and 
Florida. However, before I discuss the specific provisions of the 
amendment, I would like to commend the chairman of the Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, 
and its ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, for their excellent work on this 
bill.
  This bill provides $348 million for the programs of the Economic 
Development Administration [EDA]. This appropriation cuts the EDA's 
current year funding by more than 20 percent. It is $91 million less 
than the President's request and well within the economic development 
authorization which our Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic 
Development unanimously passed just yesterday.
  Nevertheless, this amendment seeks to eliminate all funding for the 
Economic Development Administration. At a time when the infrastructure 
of distressed communities is crumbling, this amendment would eliminate 
much-needed public works funds. At a time when communities need 
assistance to determine how to compete in the global market, this 
amendment would cut off critical planning and technical assistance. At 
a time when our defense industry is radically downsizing and hundreds 
of bases are closing, this amendment would cut assistance these 
communities and the industry need to help them pick themselves up, 
brush themselves off, and put the pieces of job creation back in place.
  For instance, look at EDA's crucial role in defense conversion. 
Nationwide, more than 250 military bases are currently closing and 
almost 150 additional facilities are being realigned. As we all know, 
the 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission proposes closing 
another 79 based and realigning 26 others. In my home State of 
California alone, the defense industry has already lost one-quarter of 
a million jobs. Since 1988, 21 major bases have been slated for 
closure, with more than 80,000 military and civilian workers losing 
their jobs.
  Through it all, EDA--with infrastructure grants, business development 
loans, and technical assistance--has helped both communities and 
industry adjust to the post-cold-war world. Now is not the time to kill 
this critical program.
  To the critics of EDA, let me say: the subcommittee-passed bipartisan 
authorization bill will launch EDA on a new effort founded on reform, 
responsibility, efficiency, and accountability. Gone are the programs 
and approaches of old. Gone are the inefficient bureaucracies; gone are 
the archaic eligibility requirements; and gone are the time-consuming 
and cumbersome approval processes. I believe that our bill addresses 
your concerns about EDA.
  Both the Transportation Committee's bipartisan authorization bill and 
this appropriation bill address the concerns of the past and the 
challenges of the future. Before we eliminate these programs without 
due consideration to the effect, let us provide EDA with an opportunity 
to ensure that our Nation's economic development program is second to 
none.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my hope, that our colleague from New York, Mr. 
Solomon, in dropping all the papers here, would have left them here, 
because I would have come back to put them back into place.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1995.
     Mr. William Davidson,
     Regional Planning Board,
     Lake George, NY.
       Dear William: Thank you for contacting me regarding the 
     Economic Development Administration. I most certainly share 
     your concern with this matter. I vigorously support the 
     efforts of the Economic Development Administration to provide 
     much needed capital to businesses.
       Although, Congress recently rescinded a total of $45 
     million in unspent funds to the Economic Development 
     Administration, these funds represent monies that were 
     authorized years ago and still remain unspent. This reduction 
     does not represent a cut in current funding for the Economic 
     Development Administration.
       These rescissions consist of funds appropriated in fiscal 
     year 1992 for emergency relief related to Hurricane Andrew 
     and the Midwest floods. In both cases money for the Economic 
     Development Administration was not requested by the Clinton 
     Administration. Additionally it was generally accepted that 
     these funds had been available for an appropriate length of 
     time to address the effect of economic dislocation resulting 
     from these disasters. The bill also included the rescission 
     of $7.5 million originally provided in 1987 for the Fort 
     Worth Stockyards Project that remained unspent after eight 
     years.
       These rescissions and others like them address the long 
     overdue problem of our national debt that now exceeds $4.5 
     trillion and threatens the fiscal stability of this nation 
     for future generations. Interest in the deficit will amount 
     to over $234 billion this year alone. This means that this 
     year's spending by the federal government will be paid for by 
     our children and grandchildren. That's why spending reforms 
     must take place to make this government live within its means 
     and to restore accountability to the budget in Washington. 
     For as long as I have been in Congress, I have supported 
     efforts to reduce government waste and achieve a more 
     efficient use of taxpayers' money. For the sake of future 
     generations the time has come to cut spending. This means 
     reducing, consolidating and eliminating even the most popular 
     programs.
       Although, the time has come for all programs to be trimmed 
     or returned to localities, I strongly support helping small 
     business and will do everything possible to ensure that the 
     reforms maintain the Economic Development Administration.
       Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding your 
     thoughts on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald B. Solomon.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say I have offered similar amendments over the 
years to abolish EDA and in the past it is not the easy thing to do, 
because it is the kind of amendment that strains friendships. Each of 
my colleagues has their own experiences about how EDA has helped their 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute that the EDA has done some good 
things, but it cannot be disputed that the EDA has had many, many 
failures as well. To top that off, the financial management of the EDA, 
according to the Department of Commerce inspector general, is in 
absolute shambles.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the debate is not about whether a particular 
project is beneficial or not. The debate is whether the EDA is the best 
use of taxpayers' dollars and it clearly is not. The EDA's influence on 
the economy is highly overrated. On a good month, the U.S. economy 
creates more long-term jobs than the EDA has created in its 28-year 
history.
  The best economic performance this country has experienced in the 
past 28 years was when the EDA's budget was at its lowest. Let us face 
it, the EDA has been on the chopping block for years. It has survived 
for the simple reason that it makes Representatives and Senators look 
good.
  Mr. Chairman, I contend that balancing our budget will do more for 
all of our reputations than all of the successes of the EDA. We need to 
bring these taxpayers' dollars back to do what they should be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.

[[Page H7749]]

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] with all due respect.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that having been at one time an alumnus of the 
EDA, I would disagree that the Agency has not, in fact, done many good 
things throughout this country. It has not been a boondoggle. We used 
to argue this with David Stockman who said it was a zero sum game and 
it does not create any new jobs.
                              {time}  1830

  I think there are Members in this body who can speak from experience 
who know, in fact, we did create jobs.
  I think the important thing to emphasize here is we are now on track 
to eliminate the Department of Commerce. We are proceeding to do that. 
My committee is going to be not orchestrating it, but finding out where 
things fit.
  I think it would be premature at this point to eliminate EDA until 
that process that we have ongoing now through the reconciliation 
process has been completed.
  I think the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
testified we are making dramatic changes in the delivery system. There 
have been mistakes. Too much of the country qualified for EDA 
assistance. It clearly should be focused on those areas of greatest 
need. Give us a chance to make those kinds of reforms. Give us a chance 
to do reconciliation before we hack the agency to death.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], who, as many know, is 
president of the freshman class on the Republican side of this body.
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding this time to me.
  I certainly rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise in 
support of the Economic Development Administration.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks made by many of my 
colleagues here this afternoon.
  My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], spoke 
eloquently on behalf of the EDA, and I want to take issue with only one 
thing he said. He said that EDA is the only agency he knows of that 
actually makes money for the Government at the end of the day by 
drawing down so much money from other levels of Government and from the 
private sector. Actually, there are other such agencies, and I would 
suggest to you that this is the very argument that carried the day on 
behalf of the Appalachian Regional Commission a couple of weeks ago, 
when, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, this House rejected an 
amendment to defeat the Appalachian Regional Commission and rejected an 
amendment to eliminate the economic development portion of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority.
  The same arguments that carried the day 2 weeks ago on TVA and ARC 
are true today, with the exception of the fact that EDA helps needy 
counties in every section of the United States of America, not just in 
a localized area, as the Appalachian Regional Commission and TVA do.
  It would be the height of inconsistency for this House of 
Representatives to save the ARC and TVA while at the same time killing 
EDA.
  Now, there are differences in the programs, but the main factors 
still remain. I would suggest to you that the chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], was correct when he spoke earlier 
about the need for changes in the funding formula.
  I do have a bill in the subcommittee that has authorizing 
jurisdiction, and that subcommittee is working on changing the funding 
formulas. I think, quite frankly, that EDA could have more of a bottom-
up approach and more participation by the Governors than they presently 
have.
  But the arguments still basically are the same. We are talking about 
an agency that provides jobs and
 an agency that is working. It provides for needy countries, for 
example, fire protection to attract jobs and industry into a community 
and create taxpayers out of people. It helps communities build 
industrial parks. It helps communities build access roads to job 
locations. This is money well spent.

  There is Federal money that basically takes a dollar out of 
somebody's pocket who is working and gives it to somebody else who is 
not working. I think Americans have the right to question that type of 
Federal spending, and we are doing that. We are balancing the budget in 
this House of Representatives and in this Congress.
  But, when we can take Federal dollars and provide the opportunity for 
private sector employers to create jobs in the private sector and make 
taxpayers out of individuals in the counties which need it most and the 
locations which need it most, to me that is so much better than a 
transfer payment because it creates long-term jobs. EDA, just like TVA 
and ARC, is a good investment in jobs in the private sector.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and support for the EDA.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong opposition to this short-sighted amendment which 
would terminate funding for the Economic Development Administration.
  As the Representatives whose district is home to the Philadelphia 
Naval Shipyard and has been one of the most heavily affected regions in 
the base closure process, I know firsthand the remarkable work being 
done by EDA.
  With the expected loss of over 38,000 direct and indirect jobs as a 
result of the closure of the Navy Yard, EDA was on the ground working 
with the community--not as bureaucrats, but as a partner.
  In Philadelphia, thanks in large part to this partnership, we are on 
the brink of creating good jobs and economic opportunity by reviving 
commercial shipbuilding at the Navy Yard.
  EDA provides planning grants to local communities so that they can 
develop their own economic development plans. EDA provides seed money 
for community-identified infrastructure investments so that they can 
recover from an economic loss and rebuild their economic base.
  And there are similar success stories throughout the Nation. EDA is 
assisting big cities hit by defense downsizing, small farming 
communities stricken by drought and suburban towns hurt by industry 
cutbacks.
  People think of big cities when they talk about the EDA. But these 
EDA cuts will cut across all geographic lines.
  I urge my colleagues to talk to their mayors, county executives and 
local chambers of commerce to hear these success stories firsthand. 
Oppose this amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Economic Development Administration has been critical for rural 
America, and it promotes domestic growth as well as international trade 
growth.
  It truly puzzles me how Members can propose to eliminate the very 
agencies of Government that have been effective in advancing the fiscal 
health of America.
  The Economic Development Administration has done that.
  I wonder if Members are aware of how this agency works.
  I am familiar with how it works in the promotion of international 
trade and exporting of U.S. goods and services.
  That is a vital and important function.
  Exports from the United States have accounted for more than one-third 
of the economic growth in America, over the last 7 years.
  Over the next 10 years, exports will grow three times as fast as any 
other component of the U.S. economy.
  Export-related jobs have grown faster than domestic employment and 
export-related jobs pay almost one-fifth more than other domestic jobs.
  In 1994 alone, exports supported some 11 million jobs in this Nation, 
and by the year 2000, exports will support nearly 16 million jobs.
  In light of this compelling data, why then, Mr. Chairman, does this 
House seem to continue to be penny wise and pound foolish?
  Why does this House continue to cut the budget without regard to 
what's in the budget?
  Is this House so determined to march recklessly towards a balanced 
budget that it is willing to sacrifice good, important and valuable 
programs along the way?
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that by retaining the Economic 
Development Administration, we are more likely to balance the budget by 
the year 2002 than if we eliminated it.
  The Economic Development Administration does just what its name 
suggests--it spurs economic development in America--not just domestic 
development, but global development, where the real future lies.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Wake up Congress!

[[Page H7750]]

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Representative Hefley, to strike all 
funds contained in H.R. 2076 for the Economic Development 
Administration.
  Just yesterday, a bill reauthorizing the EDA was reported to the 
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee by the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction, and it is a bill that streamlines and tightens 
eligibility for EDA program assistance so that the funds spent go only 
to our most distressed regions throughout the Nation.
  H.R. 2076, the Commerce/State/Justice appropriations bill, has 
already cut EDA funding by 21 percent--or $91 million--below the fiscal 
year 1995 funding level. Twenty-one percent is a huge cut and I believe 
it represents EDA's fair share contribution toward reducing the 
deficit.
  The reauthorization bill preserves the basic EDA programs, but has 
radically altered the program delivery mechanism by adopting an ARC 
Commission model for future grant-making and policy decisions.
  In order to counter criticism of the EDA that it is nothing more than 
a Federal piggy bank, the new authorizing legislation strengthens the 
program by tightening the eligibility criteria, so that only truly 
distressed regions throughout the country will receive economic 
development assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, the new authorizing bill continues the ability of 
communities to respond to defense cutbacks and base closures while, at 
the same time, retaining eligibility for local development districts 
and university centers; the bill also reforms the EDA delivery 
mechanism basing it on the ARC model of documented success; and it 
tightens eligibility criteria, while cutting EDA funding by $91 
million--21 percent in fiscal year 1996. This is good reform where 
needed, and qualifies the EDA for our continued support.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hefley amendment to abolish the 
EDA, and urge their strong support for the continued funding for this 
vital job-creating program.
  This is a program that has always helped regions of the country in 
need of economic development and job-creating assistance--and it should 
be allowed to continue to provide this assistance to local governments.
  Defeat the Hefley amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley] will be postponed.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: First, amendment 
No. 43 offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]; second, 
amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
                    amendment offered by mr. allard

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nose 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair announces that 
he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the next amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 578]

                               AYES--197

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
                              {time}  1854

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:


[[Page H7751]]

       Mrs. Chenoweth for, with Mr. Dingell against.

  Messrs. HOLDEN, DEUTSCH, FORD, and SKELTON changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GALLEGLY, RADANOVICH, BUYER, LAZIO of New York, WICKER, 
EMERSON, and GORDON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 310, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 579]

                               AYES--115

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tiahrt
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--310

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Canady
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Roukema

                              {time}  1902

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________